# US vs. State Constitution **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 5, 2006, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-vs-state-constitution/367458 "2006-08-05T14:34:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2006, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-vs-state-constitution/367458/41 "2006-08-06T02:29:00Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Huh? States can’t abridge the right to jury trials or double jeapordy. Double jeopardy is covered in the 5th, not the 7th. But the right to a jury trial in some civil laws suits is not extended to the state courts. I don’t know why you keep insisting that it has been, in light of all the evidence that it hasn’t. Can you show me the SCOTUS case that incorporated that part of the 7th amendment? You can’t, because no such ruling exists. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2006, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-vs-state-constitution/367458/42 "2006-08-06T02:33:11Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > The latter statement is true, is it not? Well, it’s nonsesical. That very amendment already exists, so why would you talk about it as a hypothetical amendment that might be passed in the future? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2006, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-vs-state-constitution/367458/43 "2006-08-06T02:35:58Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Well, it’s nonsesical. That very amendment already exists, so why would you talk about it as a hypothetical amendment that might be passed in the future? But it DOESN’T exist. The grand jury clause of the the Fifth Amendment is _not_ a civil right but it could be _made_ one at any time. If an amendment is added to say that that states have to do it, then states have to do it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2006, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-vs-state-constitution/367458/44 "2006-08-06T02:37:53Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > The latter statement is true, is it not? Not precisely, because it’s in the subjunctive mood; it discusses the idea as something that might happen in the future, not something that’s already in the constitution. But I accept that you were simply phrasing things quickly. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2006, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-vs-state-constitution/367458/45 "2006-08-06T02:40:13Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Double jeopardy is covered in the 5th, not the 7th. But the right to a jury trial in some civil laws suits is not extended to the state courts. Civil law suits are not criminal trials and are not prosecuted by the state, so no protection _from the state_ is relevant. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2006, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-vs-state-constitution/367458/46 "2006-08-06T03:22:29Z")
**Dio** : The first eight Amendments **do not intrinsically apply to the states**. They guarantee that **the Federal government** cannot infringe on those rights. Period. Nothing more. (I think it was Gibbons v. Ogden that established that.) Section One of the Fourteenth defines every person born or naturalized here as a citizen of the United States and entitled to the rights of such citizens (three distinct clauses, each with its own jurisprudence). Since about 1895, under both liberal and conservative courts, most of the rights in the Bill of Rights have been extended as against the states, either in strict language or in general principle. But incorporated piecemeal into that doctrine, with wiggle room for the courts to rule either way (or, presumably, decline to incorporate at all, though that argument would be interesting). So the right not to be prosecuted for a felony without being first indicted by a grand jury – and the right to a jury trial in civil cases – are rights you are entitled to. In Federal court. But those rights do not extend to state courts, unless the state guarantees them separately. What the state does have to do is ensure you get a fair trial. Because it’s a case where the general principle, not the specific requirements of the Fifth and Seventh Amendments, is what the states are held to under the Fourteenth. Procedural due process – the kind of DP **Bricker** likes. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2006, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-vs-state-constitution/367458/47 "2006-08-06T03:25:15Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Civil law suits are not criminal trials and are not prosecuted by the state, so no protection _from the state_ is relevant. Of course it is. Civil cases can be tried in state courts. It’s not about who is doing the prosecuting-- there isn’t anything about who is doing the prosecuting in the 7th amendment. Here’s the wiki link on the [7th amendment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) which, oddly enough, starts out with: > [@](#): > > Amendment VII (the Seventh Amendment) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, codifies the right to jury trial in certain civil trials. The Supreme Court has not extended the amendment to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment, as it has for many other components of the Bill of Rights. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2006, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-vs-state-constitution/367458/48 "2006-08-06T03:27:51Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Civil law suits are not criminal trials and are not prosecuted by the state, so no protection _from the state_ is relevant. The right you have protected as against the Feds. is not to have a judge rule on your case, rather than a jury. And you don’t have that protection as against the state – unless the state extends it in its own constitution. Human rights cover a lot more ground than merely protection from an authoritarian state. I would assume that a state law that assiduously protects your freedom of speech, but prohibits law enforcement from stopping a mob of incensed people from assaulting you for proclaiming some point of view inimical to the prejudices of a majority of legislators, would be found in violation of the First Amendment. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-vs-state-constitution/367458.md?page=2)