We have been covering the US Constitution line by line. When Republicans wave their paper props and parrot their vile machinations, we will be prepared to expose the lies. We have finished the main body of the Constitution. Now we continue with the Amendments. You can find the last article on the main body of the Constitution here. It has links to all the others. The text comes from The US Constitution. Previous articles in the Amendment series:
Article I
Articles II and III
Article IV
Article V
Article VI
Article [VII]
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
The 7th Amendment is a little confusing. It appears to guarantee a jury trial in all civil cases, but it does not. It refers to British common law as it existed in 1791. Common law divided civil cases into two categories: actions in law and actions in equity. Thus we are guaranteed a jury trial for actions in law, but not for actions in equity. Cases demanding monetary damages are actions in law. Cases demanding injunctions, rescission, specific performance, etc. are actions in equity.
This is controversial in two places.
Republicans repeatedly claim that Justices may not refer to any document other than the Constitution in deciding cases. Isn’t that rather obtuse given that the Constitution itself refers to another document?
Republicans support the notion that giant corporations may include arbitration clauses in financial and employment documents. These clauses force resolution of civil disputes by arbiters the corporations choose. Since such disputes involve monetary damages, they are actions in law, and the arbitration clauses attempt to circumvent the right to a jury.
11 Responses to “Constitutional Amendments: Article VII”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
you are brilliant – i had no idea about this stuff
i am learning so much
at the end of your terrific analysis of the constitution i will give my opinion on the constitution (tho you probably know it)
Thanks, DC. {{blush!!}}
I think I do, but I’ll keep quiet until then.
Just a note about arbitration on contracts.
If you’re buying a car and applying for corporate credit such as through Ford or Toyota, you can refuse to sign off on the arbitration clause. We’ve refused that clause for years. Every time, the finance person had to run out of the office to go call legal to find out we’re right.
We discovered this from good old Consumer Reports in one of their car issues.
By extension, I would think you could refuse the arbitration clause on any contract.
Thanks Marva. That is true for cars, because they want to sell you that big ticket item. But many banks will simply refuse to issue you a credit card or open a checking account for you unless you agree to arbitration, and msny giant corporations, Halliburton for one, will not hire you without one.
Still looking for a clause that Bush has not violated. Great explanation.
Thanks Lisa. It’s the Third Amendment.
What NO tazing,,, what the hell good is it.
Ptuifffffphyyt!! 😛
😉
You just made an excellent argument that binding arbitration clauses are unconstitutional in cases involving money. It’s the first argument I’ve read either way on the subject.
Thanks Lib. That’s because the argument is original thought. It may not hold up, but I’ve never seen it elsewhere.