"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." ```from Wikip. What's the Law? Is that 20$ (depreciated fiat USD 2018), or [20 Spanish milled dollars] 20$ (20 oz spot 2018) =$340 USD(2018)?
I've seen that question asked before. I believe that technically it still refers amount as given by the FRN with Jackson on it. Back when the constitution was written it would refer to an amount now equivalent to a double eagle.
Pretty silly, isn't it? Imagine if they'd envisioned inflation, and instead specified the amount in terms of commodities. "...where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty buck skins..." "...where the value in controversy shall exceed one yoke of steers three years old..." "...where the value in controversy shall exceed two months' wages for a common laborer, or one month's wages for a teacher..."
It's not an answer, more like a restatement of the question. The question is does the $20 referred to in the amendment still just refer to $20 today or does it mean the equivalent value to what $20 was when the amendment was ratified.
I disagree, but OK. Here's a more specific answer - In interpreting the Seventh Amendment, judges soon encountered a problem. To which “common law” courts was the Amendment referring? The states had different civil jury practices, and the federal courts were new. The United States Supreme Court announced a solution. The term “common law” in the Seventh Amendment meant the common law of England. Parsons v. Bedford (1830). A century later, the Supreme Court formally declared that the Amendment was to be interpreted according to the common law of England at the time the Amendment was ratified, that is, in 1791. Dimick v. Schiedt (1935). The pertinent part is underlined. In other words $20 then means $20 today.
