Talk:Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 1

Archive 1

Meaning

what exactly does that amendment mean?

The editors have missed the meaning of this. It means you have a right to a jury in an action at law, but not one at equity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.143.33 (talk) 01:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It means that there is a right to a jury in civil lawsuits as long as the the lawsuit is more than $20(note this was more money then than it is now with an aproximate value of $1248 and a ratio of 1:62.4.As of Jan 27, 2004). It also states that the jury's decisions cannot be overturned except when it was traditionally allowed(if new evidence surfaces for instance)

63.205.42.241 05:31, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

A specific question that should be addressed is what $20 has been interpreted as. I would assume that it's been evaluated to be some de minimis value. I do seem to recall that there have been some cases where the value has been considered to include things like lost work, but I don't know what the value is. Anybody know?

--W1nfr3y 01:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Huh. Well, that's interesting, he changed my message to make it look like he wrote it superluser_tc 2007 August 13, 07:57 (UTC)

What are some issues that this amendment deals with?

Just curious, if someone wants to sue for 21$ does this mean that they have to get a jury involved? Duomillia 21:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if either side wants one. James Grimmelmann 21:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"Twenty dollars"

Is the amount of twenty dollars applied literally today, or adjusted for inflation? Probably $20 was quite a large sum back in 1791, right? -- 212.63.43.180 21:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It is applied literally. James Grimmelmann 21:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

legal sufficiency

This article needs a great deal of work for completeness and for an accurate summary of the law regarding the role of the jury. Also, the article, as written, seems to summarize state law, which is not the subject of this amendment. Broadcaster101 (talk) 05:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment07/01.html#1 as a model for reworking this article. Enon (talk) 23:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

A section of the article (was nominated for not being neutral. I believe this is obvious to almost any reader - it is an opinion on the supposed lack of rights that American citizens enjoy. It is not the only opinion in american politics, and I would think it's not even a mainstream opinion (though I don't have sources on hand.) Organizations such as human rights watch would certainly dispute the claims, which are presented as fact. If I have time, and no one objects, I'll come in here with some sources and rewrite it. Jason M Espinosa (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please do - this article reads like it was written by a Tea Party activist of the most ignorant variety. parkerj 69.136.229.149 (talk) 04:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I've had somewhat of a crack at it, but it still needs work/love. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

This article seems to not be unfair, there is no doubt that the right to effective trial by jury has been greatly eroded, particularly in the civil cases with which the seventh amendment deals, however the problem is that the article seems to deal more with trial by jury than with the seventh amendment per se. My impression is that precedent has made the seventh amendment all but a dead letter - I'd like to see more about the precedents and decisions that have led to its current desuetude. I think that the current pro-constitutional and pro-jury quotations are not irrelevant, but need to be augmented with references more specific to the seventh amendment. Enon (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

With all respect, the operative word in the Seventh Amendment is "preserved." Cognizant of this fact, the "Supreme Court has definitively stated that the "common law" in the Seventh Amendment is the English common law in 1791, when the Amendment was adopted." Suja A. Thomas, Why Summary Judgment is Unconstitutional, 93 U. VA. L. REV. 139, 141 (2007) (collecting cases). By that metric, it literally is a dead letter, in the sense that the Framers intended civil and criminal juries to have the last word as to what the Constitution said. That may seem counter-intuitive to the layman, but our judges have rewritten wide swaths of the Constitution under the guise of 'interpretation' with the purpose of expanding and consolidating their power. A pristine example is the Eleventh Amendment, which was rewritten by the Court in Hans v. Louisiana. See John Paul Stevens, “Two Questions About Justice,” 2003 U. ILL. L. REV. 821 (explanation of same).

In England, the jury was an important structural safeguard against despotic aristocratic rule. Appellate review existed to guide the jury and constrain the runaway jury, but all an appellate court could do in a civil case -- in matters criminal, an acquittal was invariably final -- was vacate their decision and remand it to the trial court, where a new jury would hear the case. The problem they envisioned and attempted to guard against was the one we witness too often today: Modern judges are selected from a shallow pool of servile political functionaries, who predictably rule in accordance with the philosophy of the Party elevating them to the bench. Speaking for a unanimous Court, Justice White explains:

"Those who wrote our constitutions knew from history and experience that it was necessary to protect against unfounded criminal charges brought to eliminate enemies and against judges too responsive to the voice of higher authority. The framers of the constitutions strove to create an independent judiciary, but insisted upon further protection against arbitrary action. Providing an accused with the right to be tried by a jury of his peers gave him an inestimable safeguard against the corrupt or overzealous prosecutor and against the compliant, biased, or eccentric judge. If the defendant preferred the common sense judgment of a jury to the more tutored but perhaps less sympathetic reaction of the single judge, he was to have it. Beyond this, the jury trial provisions in the Federal and State Constitutions reflect a fundamental decision about the exercise of official power -- a reluctance to entrust plenary powers over the life and liberty of the citizen to one judge or to a group of judges."

Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 156 (1968) (emphasis added).

Empowering our judges to be the final arbiter of what the law says -- and giving them an unbridled liberty to disregard so-called "binding precedent" -- unavoidably engenders a judocracy, entrusting plenary powers over the life and liberty of the citizen to one judge. Solicitor General Kagan acknowledged this in her now-famous commencement speech at Princeton, where she said that our judges have become "Platonic Guardians," averring that "Bush v. Gore is just the tip of the iceberg." (Now, does that sound like something a rabid right-wing teabagger would say, Parker?) The Federal Appendix is replete with examples of judges gone wild, burying decisions in flagrant disregard of precedent in the graveyard of so-called "unpublished" opinions. The late Judge Richard Arnold explains the problem in Anastasoff v. United States, 223 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2000), and I commend you to review that opinion before you pass judgment.

Would Human Rights Watch dispute this claim? With what? The legislative history of the Bill of Rights is in the Annals and Elliot's (re: state ratification debates). The view presented here was essentially universal in 1791, and also espoused in Blackstone (which is why Chase was impeached). I would be happy to debate this topic with anyone who is knowledgeable with respect to this issue, but again with respect, I sincerely doubt that a Ph.D. and a programmer who haven't done the research are qualified to comment authoritatively. Bouldergeist (talk) 13:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Removing lead text

I've removed the lead text that needed citation and explanation:

However, in some civil cases, the Supreme Court has not incorporated the right to a jury trial to the states in the fashion which might be expected under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court ruled however in The Justices v. Murray, 76 U.S. 9 Wall. 274 (1869) that the clause of the Amendment, which the re-examination of any fact found by a jury, is not only restricted in its application to suits at-common-law, tried before juries in courts of the United States, but applies also equally to a case tried before a jury in a state court.

The article had a needs citations tag that seems to be only justified by this one instance in the lead. I suggest that the text above, if a citation can be found, be worked into the body of the article. --Mnnlaxer (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Going for Good Article status

Over the next few months, I'm hoping to bring this article to GA status. Two things I'd like to do are expand the lead to better summarize the article (one sentence is a little short), and include information about the amendment's ratification. I also would like to reduce the reliance on primary sources throughout the article, including secondary sources that discuss the amendment's significance and history as well.

Do any long-time watchers of this article have any suggestions/objections? Thanks to everyone who worked on this article before me! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, since this article's rather quiet, I've boldly inserted my new draft, but feel free to revert any and all parts you disagree with per WP:BRD. As planned, I've replaced the original research/primary source version of the article with one that draws on secondary sources; I've also added more information on the amendment's ratification, etc. as well as a good deal more case law. I've also expanded the lead to better summarize the article, and added some images. Just let me know if anybody has any suggestions/objections/outrage.

Tomorrow I'll take a look through Google Books for potential further sources; after that, I'll go ahead and nominate this for GA. Thanks again to everybody active at this article. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

This article looks pretty good. I made a few edits here and there.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The article is a very good candidate for GA status. At most, a few tweaks would be necessary (although I'm not sure what they would be). SMP0328. (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to you both, especially for the clarifications re: the Twenty Dollars Clause! I especially appreciate you both taking a look so quickly. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mark Miller (talk · contribs) 06:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing--I'll look forward to your thoughts. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 10:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Quick decline criteria

An article can be failed without further review if, prior to the review, it has cleanup banners that are obviously still valid. These include {{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{citation needed}}, {{clarifyme}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}})Y. If the article is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria then it can be failed without being placed on hold Y. If copyright infringements are found in a nominated article then it can be failed without further review Y. In all other cases a full review against the six criteria is to be conducted and the nominator given a chance to address any issues.

Review

</noinclude> A good article is—

1. Well-written:
1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
• It appears that the article uses both short citations and full citations. Some full citations include ISBN numbers and some don't. I suggest that changing to full citations is the easiest. If the sources from the bibliography are being used as overarching sources the should be placed at the end of the reference section, but they appear to be used as direct referencing. I also believe that the ISBN numbers are required for a GA if they are available (could be wrong, so please feel free to correct me, if so).

• My understanding is that inconsistent references aren't a problem under the GA critiera; see WP:GACN, where one of the common mistakes is "Requiring consistently formatted, complete bibliographic citations. (If you are able to figure out what the source is, that's a good enough citation for GA.)" I've also never seen that ISBNs are required for GAs, and haven't had a reviewer mention it before. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

2. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and
• Ref 6 is not RS. While this page is part of the National Archives, it is the documentation they hold hat is RS and not the unattributed writings of the general staff there. It also does not support the claim that Madison had 20 amendments that congress reduced to 12.

• I've added an additional source that it was Congress that reduced the number of amendments from 20 to 12, though I should point out that it's a reach to call this a "statistic" that needs citation under criterion 2b. Arguing that the National Archives is not a reliable source for the date of the proposal strikes me as silly, but in any case, again this isn't a statement that needs citation per 2b. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

3. it contains no original research.
• It does appear that there may be some small amount of original research, only from a lack of RS on a few claims. This may be easily corrected. I will hold the article at this point, before continuing the review.
• The first paragraph is cited to reference 2. The entire chunk. There appear to be a number of claims that could be seen as the author's opinion s to what is strong and weak. Either attribute this statements to that of the author or change the wording to more neutral text that does not include an opinion of strength or weakness...or simply add more referencing to each of the following claims:

"After several years of comparatively weak government under the Articles of Confederation, a Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia proposed a new constitution on September 17, 1787, featuring a stronger chief executive and other changes" There are both facts and opinion here. Either lose the opinion, attribute it, or strengthen the claim with a direct citation to an independent RS. It may not seem like much, but its encyclopedic value requires some context. Perhaps just expanding on what the author is saying to show this as an opinion, instead of a fact to justify the claim of "weakness" or "strength".

As an example of what I mean, I lift this from further down that seems to be done in that manner:

"The Seventh Amendment is generally considered one of the more straightforward amendments of the Bill of Rights. Scholar Charles W. Wolfram states that it has usually "been interpreted as if it were virtually a self-explanatory provision".[11][12]"

• "George Mason, a Constitutional Convention delegate and the drafter of Virginia's Declaration of Rights, proposed that a bill of rights listing and guaranteeing civil liberties be included." This needs a citation, even if it repeats reference 2.

• Well, first, this doesn't fall into any of the categories listed as needing inline citation per 2b. Second, it's common Wikipedia practice to cite several sentences with one inline citation; if you look at other GAs, you'll see this. Third, it's an enormous stretch to call this "original research" because the citation comes a sentence later instead of here. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• "Other delegates—including future Bill of Rights drafter James Madison—disagreed, arguing that existing state guarantees of civil liberties were sufficient and that any attempt to enumerate individual rights risked implying that the federal government had power to violate every other right (this concern eventually led to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments). " I feel this needs an independent source.

3. Broad in its coverage:
1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. YStable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
1. Ymedia are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
• Just noticed this caption: "Justice Joseph Story issued the first judicial opinion on the amendment in United States v. Wonson ". This needs a reference. Even the captions in the images require referencing, and this is making a claim of the first or last such opinion of law isn't straight forward or obvious information like the "sun sets in the west".

GA withdrawal

Khazar2 has withdrawn his application for this article to receive GA status. Why has he done this and does he intend to reapply in the near future? SMP0328. (talk) 05:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

You can see explanation at Talk:Seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution/GA1, but the short version is that I do intend to renominate in a few days time. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I read your reasoning for withdrawing. I look forward to reapplying. You successfully brought similar articles to GA status and you will do the same for this article. SMP0328. (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

This appears to have been done with an assumption of bad faith and yet the editor took time to work on the article per the reviewer suggestions. I would object to this being re-added to a GA nominations in this way.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Mark, the GA instructions allow a nominator to withdraw from a review at their discretion; you can read them at WP:GAN/I. I don't think you edited in bad faith; you're just very, very slow (more than two weeks just to post comments on the first few paragraphs, before you bailed again) and don't seem very familiar with the GA criteria, which makes the review an unpleasant slog. I appreciate your input so far, but I'd prefer to start from scratch with a more prepared reviewer. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Really, then why didn't you withdraw before your last request for me to begin, which I responded to by beginning the review. I am not saying you don't have the ability to withdraw the nomination, I am saying you did it for the wrong reasons and are stating outright your intentions to re-nominate it in a few days even as you intend to make further fixes as suggested. I am saying it was odd to ask me to begin and then when I begin you withdraw. I sure hope you didn't expect a rubber stamp.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, but it seems silly and unproductive for us to go back and forth any more. If you want to report me somewhere, go ahead. But it seems best to just let another reviewer take a look. If your points are valid, they'll be upheld, and I'll make your changes without a fight; I've been wrong before and it's possible I'm wrong here, too. If you feel I do get a rubber stamp review later, you can go to WP:GAR. But it's a waste of time to snipe at each other when we've both got our blood up. For now, let's just part without hard feelings: we've disagreed, it happens, time to get back to work building encyclopedic content. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Renomination

Unfortunately, User:Mark Miller has stated his intention at WT:GAN to block this article from getting a second opinion by not allowing another reviewer. This is an unusual situation, and I'm not sure how to proceed. For now, I'm renominating. Hopefully Mark will be willing to let someone else take a look; if not, Mark, please just finally post a full review so this can be failed and move on to something like GAR. Either way, hopefully we'll eventually get other eyes on this. Thanks to all, -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you are taking this in the fashion it is being presented. I have not stated, nor do I believe admin intervention is required. Nor do I understand your belief that this was going to be failed. I don't work that way. If I felt the article was a fail, I would simply have made all the points against it and simply not listed it. it isn't a failure on the part of your or any other editor's efforts. The review is simply meant to get it to GA criteria before giving it that rating. I generally work with editors to pass the article, not to make them feel like there are unreasonable demands. I don't think my comment was that anyone else would give you rubber stamp, but that your reaction seemed to be that you expected me to just give a GA rating without discussion or addressing my concerns. Look, nobody is perfect, I sure am not. But your mistake was thinking the article was going to be failed when I began to work in earnest. Also it is not my intention to block anything, but to see if there is any guideline that covers this situation.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I feel that either Kahzar wanted to seek a second opinion and took the incorrect route to accomplish that or he assumed (as from their statements above) that the article was going to be failed and sought a route to keep that from happening. I feel that was not within the spirit of the project, but clearly the editor does wish a different reviewer. At the advice of another trusted editor I will not attempt to review the article further and will allow another editor to do so. At this time however, I would like to request that Kahzar2 not re-nominate the article, but perhaps allow SMP0328 to do so. Thanks--Mark Miller (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

That's a spiteful and silly request, and obviously isn't going to happen. (Though I should add I'd have no problem sharing credit with SMP, who always deserves it.)

Look, you've now posted three or four times more text on this drama in the last few hours than you were willing to post to the GA review in more than two weeks. Let's get our priorities straight and just get back to work building an encyclopedia; I won't respond to further posts from you on this subject. No hard feelings, but this isn't a productive use of time for either one of us. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

If my nominating the article for GA status would be legit, then so should Khazar2's renomination. I assume Mark is doing his best to help this article achieve GA status. Mark, maybe you should consult with an editor with more experience in making GA reviews. You do appear to be asking a lot more than what other reviewers have asked of Khazar2 in GA reviews of similar articles. SMP0328. (talk) 01:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I stick to the request. If it is ignored I may decide not to honor the request of the trusted editor unless there is an actual policy against it. I do not know what relevance there is to what others have asked of the editor. What I asked was not out of the line. But clearly there is something going on far more than what I assumed. This may well need an admin intervention if this continues. I see that Kahzar brings up the mention of Drama. I ask...just who created the drama and how did they fail the GA review process. Perhaps that is a better question for all.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh. I see it is what I suspected. This is about credit for the GA nomination and you refusing to allow me credit for the review. Well...lets look at the process and how it works. If there is no such guideline stopping me from the second review...I will review it a second time. if there is such as guideline, I will seek administrative opinion on the situation.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 18:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I will review this article.

I know there were prior issues with the first GA Review.

I'm going to have to take some time to:

1. Familiarize myself in greater detail with those prior issues.
2. Read over the article itself.
3. Analyze the article text, images, stability, etc, with respect to WP:WIAGA and make an evaluation and determination.

I can tell right off the bat that it wouldn't be an immediate "pass" as without having yet read the entire prior review/issues/etc, the lede/intro looks a bit choppy and there are some one-sentence-long or maybe two-sentence-long paragraphs that are a bit skimpy.

However, all that being said, I'm going to be traveling out of town soon with limited Internet access and unreliable connections when I do have it. So it might be a little under a couple weeks before I actually post the full review and get to it in more depth.

Maybe I'll have a chance in the interim to evaluate other things as part of WP:WIAGA piece by piece first, such as images, stability, etc.

Cheers,

— Cirt (talk) 18:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Sounds fine; thanks for stepping in to take a look. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey Cirt, I'm just withdrawing this. Mark Miller's threatening to hound this one in various ways if I don't, and this energy would be better spent in other places. Again, thanks for being willing to take this one over; sorry I wasn't able to see it through. Ultimately, the important point is the real quality of the article rather than the green blob in the corner or whose name is on the nomination, and I've taken this as far as I was reasonably going to take it. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Mark Miller made no such threat and I suggest you reign it in there Kahzar. I said point blank that your bad faith withdrawal of the nomination (now done a second time, demonstrating your lack of good faith and collaboration with editors you simply dislike) was meant to keep me out of the discussion. As I said, I can walk away from reviewing, but since I am not a reviewer I can now contribute directly the article and still contribute to the review as reviews welcome other input, but the reviewer themselves have the final pass or fail decision. This is clearly further demonstration of your manipulation of the GA review process.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Cirt about above

1. I'll be traveling out of town with limited Internet access for about one week.
2. I strongly suggest that both Khazar2 and Mark Miller refrain from editing the article and its talk page and this GA Review during that time period (let's say at least 1.5 weeks from now).
3. Sometime in there I'll try to put up some points here about recommendations related to WP:WIAGA.
4. Then we can see about trying to address those, point-by-point.
5. Again, I really recommend at this point for both Khazar2 and Mark Miller to take a break from this particular article. This is without any particular judgments being made by myself about any of their prior actions, just a recommendation going forwards as a gesture of good faith to each other.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Cirt, I appreciate it, but I'm truly done here, and have withdrawn the nomination. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 22:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. If I have time I'll try to post some comments here, as I described I would do above, for future GA consideration, of ways to get it there, with respect to WP:WIAGA, — Cirt (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

No worries, there's always lots more articles to work on! Enjoy your travels, Khazar2 (talk) 22:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your input Cirt. I will agree to your request and not edit the article or the review for the time requested. Thanks.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)