![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
roneAmendment VIIThe question i have is, what does twenty 1789 dollars come out to be in today's currency?
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 reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Oh, and another question: why twenty dollars?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-03-02 08:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-02 10:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-02 10:27 pm (UTC)Althought it should be noted that there are like 10 or so different ways to compare the value of money and that's one of the common ones (consumer price index.)
If you did it through something like relative income of an average person, you'd probably get a wildly different number, probably between 8K - 10K due to the fact that most americans lived on farmishes and grew their own foodish at that point.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-02 10:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-02 09:04 pm (UTC)I'm not biting.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-02 09:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-02 09:41 pm (UTC)But, given how lawyers can't deal with things that aren't 'exact' I'm surprized it wasn't amended or revised to read 'twenty dollars of value, or the equivalent with inflation to the date of trial' or something.
But I hate lawyers and law anyway.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-03 12:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-03 12:39 am (UTC)I hadn't read it, no. And now that i have, it is of no help to my inquiries. Of course, now i'm wondering if my interpretation, that the FRCP has essentially invalidated the 7th Amendment, is at all valid.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-03 01:07 am (UTC)Why is this burning a hole in your hat?
no subject
Date: 2006-03-03 01:12 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-03 02:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-03 03:06 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-03 03:41 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-03 07:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-05 05:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-05 05:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-05 05:17 pm (UTC)[1] In a similar-but-different "oh shit" vein, the other day saw the strange and scary experience of Tony Blair citing his religious faith when defending the war in Iraq. I know that certain US politicians like to invoke some bloke in the sky at every opportunity, to justify any number of heinous activities (if he does support half the things he is claimed to be in favour of, I'm all for impeachment of deities), but such God references are a genuine rarity over here.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-03 02:44 am (UTC)Amendment VII
Date: 2006-03-03 12:21 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-03 03:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-03 03:41 am (UTC)First, that applies only in federal court, not state court.
To read more, go here: http://www.ajs.org/jc/juries/jc_right_overview.asp
Second, federal subject matter jurisdiction over civil cases is a bit more complex than the amendment suggests. Concerning subject matter jurisdiction granted to federal courts the amount in controversy now must be $75,000, unless they changed it when I wasn't looking.
To read more, go here: http://www.west.net/~smith/smjuris.htm
no subject
Date: 2006-03-03 04:02 am (UTC)In any event, it does look as if the twenty-dollar specification doesn't mean much any more.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-03 04:13 am (UTC)The federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over matters other than diversity jurisdiction. For example, there is no lower dollar limit on matters that involve a federal question.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-03 05:21 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-03 05:37 am (UTC)Just look up the spot price of gold; that's what $20 was all the way up until 1928 when the USA was taken off the gold standard.