Amendment VII—Ela Roso

Video

Written Component

Representation was an important matter during the Revolutionary War. Prior to the conflict, colonists did not have any representatives in the British Parliament. One thing they did have, however, was participation in colonial civil juries. Juries became a way for the colonial population to block unpopular British laws and have a say in colonial laws. After the war, an amendment to the Constitution was proposed that would guarantee the right to a civil jury. Supporters of the proposal believed that it would cement the civil jury as another form of representation for the people and protect them in court from tyrannical laws and corrupt judges. This proposal became the Seventh Amendment.

The main clause of the Seventh Amendment is the first one, which states the right to a trial by jury in civil cases. This means that in civil cases, such as lawsuits and accidents, with the exception of exceedingly minor civil cases, the trial has the guarantee of presiding jury instead of just a judge deciding on the case. The civil cases the amendment covers do not include equity cases; additionally, the Seventh Amendment refers to trials on a federal level, not a state one. In deciding which cases require a civil jury, the Supreme Court ruled that the Seventh Amendment is based on the general meaning of the English common law jury trials of 1791. 

One divergence of interpretation when it comes to the Seventh Amendment is the English laws’ use and relevance in the modern day. The jurisdiction of juries in civil court has shifted in the centuries since the ratification of the Seventh Amendment. Gradually, the Supreme Court has granted more cases to judges instead of juries, as well as new powers, such as the ability to dismiss a jury-led trial due to insufficient evidence at any time. In the English courts, these powers did not exist. This illustrates one side of the debate: that the English common law is no longer relevant, and thus should not decide the right to civil jury. The disagreement against this claim stems from the original justifications of the amendment: the right to a civil jury is an important method of guarding the jury’s authority and preventing a corrupt judge. This is especially important due to the civil jury not having the ability to protect its own power. The fear is that without the civil jury right the government will continue to take rights away from the jury and give them to judges, thus transferring power away from the public and towards an individual. The debate over the English laws’ relevance in deciding civil juries is still in contention today.

The Seventh Amendment relates heavily to Rousseau and Locke’s Enlightenment-era idea of power to the people. The Seventh Amendment and the importance of the civil jury trial reflect the fears of revolutionaries after the Revolutionary War of having a corrupt president. Just as many of the president’s powers were restricted via the Congress in order to prevent a repeat of the English king’s tyranny, the jury of many prevents the abuse of power of one judge. This justification still has weight in the modern day. As legislation in the United States is increasingly decided by wealthy individuals with the backing of a political party, it is important for the public to have a say in politics and the nation’s laws beyond a vote in an election. The right to a civil jury and the Seventh Amendment continues to be a relevant and important amendment to the Constitution today.

---

Tags: amendment, amendment-seven, amendment-vii, amendment-viiela-roso, el, ela, ela-roso, roso, seventh-amendment, the-right-to-civil-jury, viiela