Originalist interpretation of Constitution - question:

[oboe]

A couple of posters here, specifically I think Virgil Hilts and Seagoon, but probably many others, have voiced concern over SC interpreting the Constitution as a 'living document', that is, one whose meanings may change as the culture, circumstances and values of the Nation change.   If I am correct, they feel only a strict interpretation of the original meaning of the Constitution preserves our Nation as it should, and anything else represents an erosion, or slide away from the way we should be.

So here is my question - how strict should a strict originalist be in his interpretation?   Does it mean 'literal'?

For example, the 7th Amendment:

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.

Only a fool would claim twenty dollars in 1791 is the same as twenty dollars in 2005.   Using a 3% inflation rate, over 214 years, the twenty dollars back then is equivalent to over $10,000 now.

So how do strict originalists interpret this?

[ASTAC]

Follow it to the letter..If you want to start some crap over 20 bucks..then you can.

[lazs2]

yep.. the figure is meaningless.   The intent is obvious and right.   What about the intent should be changed?

I don't think inflation should be counted as "change" tho but..

If we had to keep the $20 figure in order to keep the rest of the constitution... I say let's keep the $20 figure but...

I would ask you... do you think that changing a number based on inflation is the same thing as removing a right guarenteed by the constitution?  

do you equate inflation with rights?

lazs

[Gunslinger]

hell 8 years for a term was almost half a lifetime back in the pioneer days.  

everyone knows humans live for nearly twice as long now as they did in 1776.

by your standards maybe we should raise the term limits to two 8 year terms instead of two 4 year.

Hey we could have GWB for 8 MORE YEARS!!!!  

[weaselsan]

The Constitution allows for changes over time. It's called a Constitutional amendment...the people can amend the Constitution with 2/3 of the State legislators. Not five old farts on a court deciding based on their personal ideology.

[oboe]

My best guess would be you have to try to determine their original intent without being constricted by literal interpretation, if the result of literal interpretation is at odds with common sense.

But I'm not sure everyone sees it that way.    Seems like every $20 lawsuit requiring a jury would put quite a strain on the legal system.    I wouldn't be surprised if this issued has already been legally addressed somewhere.

Laz, I would equate inflation with a change that renders literal interpretation of specific figures or values in the Constitution obsolete.    But I don't think updating the 7th Amendment to a more current amount is equivalent to removing a right...

[capt. apathy]

when you decide to change the interpretation without actually changing the law you circumvent the process that is required for a bill to become law.

interpretations need to follow the intent when the law was passed.  if you want the law to say something else then change it, but just deciding it should have a different meaning simply because you want it to mean something different should get a judge removed.

not that we should interpret an existing law to mean that.  we should p[ass a new one to toss out judges who overstep their authority.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
hell 8 years for a term was almost half a lifetime back in the pioneer days.  

everyone knows humans live for nearly twice as long now as they did in 1776.

Benjamin Franklin died in his Philadelphia home at 84 years of age

George Washington died at the age of 67

Thomas Jefferson died on July 4, 1826 at the age of 83

Samual Adams died at the age of 81

John Adams was ninety years old when he died of old age

[lazs2]

I agree with weasle.... If the 7th's $20 limit is a problem then there is a way to change it.   The intent is still clear tho no matter what the amount.    If you changed the amount to be much more than what inflation would account for then you would be changing the intent.  If we had gone to a different monetary system that would not make the 7th null and void... you would just convert the money according to conversion rates/inflation or go through the process of modifying/changing the amendment.

If you put too many restrictions on firearms then you are changing the intent of the second.

If you make "hate speech" or "Hate acts" a crime then you are changing the intent of the first.

There is a huge difference between changing the intent of the constitution based on percieved changes in current morals and simply adjusting monetary values for conversions or inflation.  Adjusting for inflation would not set a precident for changing on "what is hip this week" basis so far as intent is concerned..

but.. you knew that right?

lazs

[oboe]

I thought we were in agreement until I read your latest reply.

I think maybe we don't agree on what the intent of the Amendment is?    My take on it is that the intent was to ensure that the right of trial by jury was preserved in lawsuits involving significant dollar amounts ($20 in 1791 was a significant amount).

But $20 dollars nowadays is not a significant amount.   So to a Constitutional literalist, the Amendmend guarantees the right to trial by jury for even the most insignificant of lawsuits.   And I don't think that was the intent of the Amendment.

But I am not talking about adding restrictions to the 2nd Amendment or 1st Amendment (nor will any be forthcoming from me based on this discussion - its not a trick question).

[lazs2]

how are we not in agreement?   there is a mechanism for change... if we haven't changed it then we should go with the $20 figure.

interpreting the "intent" is tricky.  I do think that the $20 figure was not one of the better thought out parts of the constitution and needs to be changed if it is a problem because of inflation.

I still would be more comfortable tho thinking that inflation was meant to be taken into account than to think that free speech should be modified depending on what words are in or out this decade

lazs

[oboe]

I agree the use of $20 as a standard in the Constitution was maybe not well thought out.   But I wonder if the founding fathers had the notion of inflation in their day?

Also I agree that determining the intent can be tricky, which is why the role of the SC justices is so important.  Like it or not, determining the intent is their job.  

Here is where I think we disagree:

I say the intent of the Amendment was to ensure that lawsuits involving significant amounts of money have the right to trial by jury.    By implication, lawsuits involving insignificant or trivial amounts of money do not have the right to trial by jury.

I think you are saying that the intent is exactly as stated: All lawsuits over $20 have the right to trial by jury.    That means vrtually all lawsuits, even those involving as trivial amount as $20, have the right to trial by jury under the amendment.

There is a big difference in your position and my position if I correctly described your position.

Regards to the Amendment though, something must have already been done, because I have never heard of a $20 lawsuit involving a trial by jury.   But whatever was done did not involve another Amendment to the Constitution, or changing this one.

[lazs2]

I don't think you have heard of many cases settled for $20... I know that in most places there is a mechanism for small claims court that allows you to bypass the expense and trouble of a jury trial for cases under amounts of say $1500... I believe that you are still welcome to the jury trial if you wish tho.

I believe that the intent of the amendment was for any case over $20 to have a trial by jury.   I am not sure if inflation was even known about in those days.

I would not want the SC to determine if $20 took into account inflation..  I would rather that the amendmant be changed by the normal means than "interpreted"  no matter what.... $20 means $20.

lazs

[oboe]

Yeah, I'm not sure how far I'd get if I sued someone for $20 and demanded my constitutional right to a trial by jury.   I don't think I'd even make it into small claims court, but I'm not sure.

Its interesting to me that in the case of this amendment, the application of the law would change drastically.  In 1791, you had to have a fairly substantial lawsuit claim to get a trial by jury.   Now, you are constitutionally entitled to a trial by jury in lawsuits less than $20.    

Quite a huge change in the Constitution, thanks to inflation.

[Yeager]

Its a living document because it can be amended, not because it can be "interpreted"