hunter

Oriana – The 7th Amendment

Video

Written Component

When being ruled by Britain, the colonists had no say in the British Parliament, meaning that they had no control in how they were governed, or what taxes were levied on them. So when the colonies introduced the idea of independence from Britain, colonial juries were a way for the colonies to start governing themselves. And in 1776, when the colonies finally gained their independence, the right to civil jury was included in many state laws.

However, when the Constitutional Convention met in 1787, there were mixed feelings about civil juries. The Federalists felt that including a civil jury in the constitution would lead to the nullification of laws, while Anti-Federalists believed that the lack of this law would prevent citizens from being protected from governmental abuses. Ultimately the 7th amendment was drafted into the Bill of Rights. The 7th Amendment is commonly interpreted as: The right to a jury trial in civil cases, when the case dispute exceeds 20 dollars. No judge can overturn the jury’s verdict. In the 7th Amendment, the term “common law” is used twice.

This term confused many as it was unclear what common law the writers of the Constitution were referring to. America was a young nation, and it did not yet have a common law to base this Amendment on. In the Supreme Court case United States v. Wonson, it was determined that the common law that the amendment referred to was actually the common law of England. This statement was refined in Dimick v. Schiedt (1935), which declared that the 7th amendment was to be interpreted in terms of English common law as it was in 1791. The meaning of this term was clearly defined. However, the Supreme Court ruled in the Baltimore & Carolina Line, Inc. v. Redman (1935) case, the “substance of the common law right of trial by jury” is different in its actual application to every civil case. This means that the right to trial by jury is guaranteed, but certain civil cases can be handled with modifications to the jury, including a decreased size, or the lack of.

I agree with this ruling because there are, especially in the 21st century, many aspects that can go into each case, making them unique from each other. And in some of these cases, juries aren’t required, or would benefit without a jury. Every aspect of this amendment has been clearly defined, except the twenty dollar amount required for a civil case to be tried by a jury. This is because the impact of this dollar amount has changed over the centuries. While twenty dollars may have been a handsome amount of money in 1791, the value has decreased, not accurately representing the amount required for modern day civil cases. And may very well be the case in the future, where the price again becomes irrelevant. It’s best to remove this clause entirely.

Kannon Hunter – Fifth Article

Video

Written Component

The framers of the Constitution sought to create a government that would address the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation, the first governing document of the United States. The Articles had proven ineffective in providing a strong central authority and lacked provisions for amending the document. The framers recognized the need for a more flexible and adaptable system that could withstand the test of time. This led to the inclusion of Article 5 in the Constitution, which provides a formal and organized mechanism for amending the Constitution.

The historical forces giving rise to Article 5 can be attributed to the failures of the Articles of Confederation, the influence of Enlightenment ideas, the experiences of the American Revolution, the desire to balance federal and state powers, and the need for a flexible system of governance. These factors shaped the framers’ vision for a constitution that could be amended to meet the evolving needs of the nation while preserving its core principles.

Article 5’s primary significance lies in its provision for amending the Constitution. It allows for the adaptation of the Constitution as societal needs and conditions change over time. This ensures that the Constitution remains relevant and avoids becoming rigid or outdated. However, there are divergent interpretations of Article 5, particularly regarding the power of Congress in the amendment process. Some interpretations emphasize Congress’s sole authority to propose amendments, while others argue that a convention of states can independently propose amendments.

While there isn’t a specific Supreme Court decision addressing this debate, the case of Dillon v. Gloss (1921) clarified that Congress can set deadlines for the ratification of proposed amendments. While some scholars have argued that Article 5 should be changed to allow for an easier path to proposing and ratifying constitutional amendments, the debated interpretation “How We Change The Constitution (Hint: It’s not by amending it)” by David A, Strauss is particularly persuasive because it gives direct examples of how many of the rules and areas covered by the Constitution have changed over time, even though the number of constitutional amendments has been limited and the process to propose and ratify an amendment is strict.

Strauss gives compelling examples of instances where the interpretation of the Constitution has changed, even though the specific text of the document has not. For example, even though the Equal Rights Amendment was never officially ratified, women continued to gain equality through other channels, like legal battles in the courts. Regarding the suggested adaptation of the amendment process, one argument proposes changing the requirement to two-thirds and three-fourths of the popular vote instead of relying on the House of Representatives and State Legislatures. An argument can be made that allowing the people to directly vote on changing the Constitution will lead to a more efficient path to enacting amendments.

However, it is important to consider the potential consequences of such a change. The general population may be easily influenced by political propaganda, and the media or may not fully understand the serious implications of more easily proposed and passed constitutional amendments. While the high thresholds for proposing and ratifying constitutional amendments impose challenges that have resulted in only 27 constitutional amendments having ever been instituted, they were put in place by the Founding Fathers for good reasons. Altering the process based solely on popular vote may not necessarily represent the long-term will and best interests of the nation.