Amendment VII: Trial by Jury in Civil Cases. Ratified 12/15/1791.
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.
OK, you've got criminal cases, cases in which government punishes individuals for committing crimes--Amendment VI--and you've got civil cases, lawsuits between private parties over non-criminal cases such as personal injury and contracts. Here in Amendment VII, the judges power is limited in throwing out a jury's decision.
As a point of note, to understand a greater portion of the Constitution's effectiveness it comes down to one word and one word only: limit. What the Constitution is attempting to do is limit governmental power because remember the colonists were coming from a position of powerlessness for being ruled by a despot, King George III.
Now, a trial by jury was ideally written into the Constitution to get "the people" directly involved in government. Ideally, this is a nice idea. Practically, there are problems. Number one is the fact that law over the years has become more and more complex and a civil jury may even inhibit due process of law, according to some experts. Others, as stated above, believe that it's essential that in a republic--of the people, by the people, for the people to a limited degree--that the public should participate. However, sometimes or most of the time, actually, the public doesn't want to participate.
Case in point, my most popular article of all time of all the hundreds of articles I've written on one of the most popular article directories on the Internet is titled "How to Avoid Jury Duty." Yes, my friends, YOU DON'T WANT JURY DUTY. The reports are conclusive. Apparently, more people want to know more ways to get out of jury duty than anything else I have to offer.
The lengths that people will go to avoid jury duty is considerable. I have one friend who has simply ignored numerous jury summonses. Something I don't suggest you do. Failure to respond to a jury summons or attend jury duty can result in fines, suspension of driver's license, or in some cases criminal charges. Don't push your luck.
However, I've been summoned three times and attended once. I was excused for financial hardship (I was a student at the time), I was on call for a week but not asked to come in, and then I was on call and asked to come in for jury selection. During jury selection, the majority of people will do a lot of dancing to get out of serving. Of the thirty-plus people I watched take a seat for questioning by the attorneys about half asked the judge for a sidebar. They wanted to talk in private so they could get out of serving. The majority of people had or maybe even invented some type of excuse.
So "ideally" in this greatest of free countries citizens desire to do their duty as a free citizen and serve as a juror. Ideally. Keep in mind that today, American's have been free for quite some time, hundreds of years, and a burning desire to serve one's country by being a juror or to partake in a government is nothing new or desirable to a people who have become over the years quite spoiled in their freedom. American's haven't had a dictator breathing down their necks telling them what to do for a long time. And today, instead of fearing a dictator most Americans fear nothing and have instead become spoiled in the extreme in being able to make their own choices, thus the belief that jury duty is more of an imposition to their free time than a blessing in expressing government given freedoms.
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved . . .
OK, the amount "in controversy" is no longer "twenty dollars." Now, I think it's twenty-five and some change. Seriously, this dollar amount certainly speaks to a lack of vision by the framers, this point lending itself to the fact that not only were the framers fallible but that Constitutional amendments are essential.
Nevertheless, the point being here that "the right of trial by jury shall be preserved." The right to trial by jury then was essential for a people who were not guaranteed such. And it was certainly better than trial by ordeal, which was used in the Middle Ages, in which one had to do something like hold hot metal to prove he or she was telling the truth; or maybe you were put to battle and you had to win to prove innocence; or how about a trial by oath in which you had to get the greater number of people to swear to God on your behalf than those who did so for your accuser. Now these methods would certainly improve your "speed to trial" right, and if still used today to some degree, maybe as an alternative if you've avoided jury duty, I do believe we would see more enthusiasm for serving as a juror. Just an idea.
Now keep in mind that juries may be competent or ignorant, especially in complex cases that entail hundreds of plaintiffs and much detailed law code. But also keep in mind that some scholars say that judges can be incompetent and ignorant. And if you've ever run into highly trained specialists such as physicians and accountants who are incompetent, you know that regardless of the length of alphabet soup after one's name people are people and prone to mistake, for no one is free or error.
. . . 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.
Basically, the judge can not ignore a jury's verdict or tell it what to do, as had been done by English judges. The judge informs the jury of law and the jury deliberates based on this understanding along with the evidence presented. If the jury finds certain facts to be true the judge, as legal adviser, informs the jury what the verdict will be.
Amendment VIII: Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Ratified 12/15/1791.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
The 8th Amendment protects prisoners before trial and after conviction, however, protections that may appear limited in regards to a lengthy or death sentence. Here you're not necessarily given an unconditional right to bail but more so that bail when allowed will not be "excessive." Bail is there to make sure the defendant appears in court for his or her trial and any dollar amount above and beyond that necessary amount is excessive. However, the Bail Reform Act of 1984 disallows bail for excessively dangerous defendants.
And regarding specifically what "cruel and unusual punishment" concerns that's up for debate. It often refers to the extreme of the death penalty, for what could be crueler than sentencing one to death unjustly.
However, the death penalty is a loaded gun. The death penalty, according to Justice Antonin Scalia, is not unconstitutional, for it is referred to in the 15th Amendment. However, some say that we have progressed as a society to the point where the death penalty should be done away with. Some attest to the one hundred death row inmates who have been released since 1973, and even though these alleged innocent have found freedom, what of those who've been convicted and are actually innocent through found evidence after the fact or unfound evidence. Some say that evidence may never be found that would acquit a convict sentenced to death. Opponents say, what then?
However, according to the Court, the death penalty has been found unconstitutional when applied to juveniles under sixteen or the mentally retarded. But skepticism in regards to one's life should always be abundant, according to George Will: "Capital punishment . . . Is a government program, so skepticism is in order."
Amendment IX: Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
According to Mr. Constitution, James Madison, the 9th Amendment was added to make sure that no one believed that the rights of citizens are restricted to The Bill of Rights. However, the Supreme Court has never used the 9th Amendment in making decisions regarding unremunerated rights. Instead, the Court has used the other amendments in regards to unspoken or unwritten writes.
However, some say the biggest problem with the 9th Amendment is who's doing the protecting? The federal or state courts or the people? There has been much debate regarding the 9th Amendment by judges, scholars, and others; however, as of yet, the Supreme Court has pretty much left it alone. Therefore, this is why it's known as the forgotten amendment.
What is a right, where does it come from, and can it be protected?
Rights come by law, nature, and tradition. Natural laws are innate to humans but aren't necessarily protected by the government. Legal rights are created by the government and may be protected depending on whether that protection comes from the federal or state government or both. However, these created laws or rights can be taken away by the government since it created them. The 9th Amendment says that just because the law or right doesn't exist doesn't mean that it can't. But what right is it talking about? Legal rights or natural rights? And therefore, you can see why this amendments doesn't get much attention.
Amendment X: Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Here we're talking state power not individual rights like the previous eight amendments. Through the Constitution, states gave up a lot of rights but get some back with the 10th Amendment. Power between the states and federal government is an ongoing issue, even to today, and early on resulted in the Civil War. As the years have passed, the Court has given more and more power to the states, as the 10th Amendment suggests. To show the initial importance of state over federal power, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison believed that to keep the federal under wraps the states could declare acts of Congress unconstitutional.
Numerous southern states did secede causing the Civil War, but even with the war not clearly behind, the federal government interceded on three important occasions in bringing minorities their rights: Brown v. Board of Education (1954), public schools must be segregated; the "Little Rock Nine" (1957) and Eisenhowers protecting the first black students to attend Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas; and the J. F. K. assigned federal troop protection of black students attending the University of Mississippi (1962). That war or civil war did not break out again is a testament to a burgeoning society, one that was growing in its wisdom and restraint, maybe not with great desire and maybe with divine providence at the backs of the majority attempting to reach with greater desire toward the ideal that all men are created equal.
