Answer:
Hi !
Here is your answer !
The Seventh Amendment has two clauses. The first, known as the Preservation Clause, provides: “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved This clause sets out the types of cases juries are required to decide. The second clause, known as the Re examination Clause, declares: “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.” This clause prevents federal judges from overturning jury verdicts in certain ways.
Explanation:
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).
Thank You !
Answer:
Not only were the royal coffers depleted, but two decades of poor harvests, drought, cattle disease and skyrocketing bread prices had kindled unrest among peasants and the urban poor.
pls give brainliest!! :)
United States of America’s first president also a important general in the revolutionary war
<span>This is of course somewhat of a subjective question, but in general most would agree that in general expansion was not justifiable since the Mexicans and Natives were doing nothing to provoke the US. One could argue it was justifiable since Americans needed more land. </span>
