The wording of the 7th says -- "in any Court of the United States Any Court of the United States, not any state court.
More of your willful ignorance.
it does not say "only". Comments about state courts are suppositions.
Right. YOUR baseless suppositions.
So completely and conclusively have both of these principles been settled, so expressly have they been recognized without dissent or question almost from the beginning in the accepted interpretation of the Constitution, in the enactment of laws by Congress and proceedings in the Federal courts, and by state Constitutions and state enactments and proceedings in the state courts, that it is true to say that to concede that they are open to contention would be to grant that nothing whatever had been settled as to the power of state and Federal governments or the authority of state and Federal courts and their mode of procedure from the beginning.
And still more of your willful ignorance.
In all your years of posting on FR, under all of your banned accounts, you've never risen above mere assertion and fabrication.
" -- The 7th Amendment never created any privileges or immunities for citizens of the United States relating to actions in state court. --"
What could be more common today than to speak of the "privilege" against compelled self-incrimination, or the "immunity" from double prosecution?
Nor is modern usage here any different from that of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. As Michael Kent Curtis observes in his illuminating and powerfully researched book on incorporation, the "words rights, liberties, privileges, and immunities, seem to have been used interchangeably."
To pick only one eighteenth-century example with obvious implications for the incorporation debate, the entitlements to civil and criminal juries, labeled in the Sixth and Seventh Amendments as "rights ," were described by the 1775 Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms as the "inestimable privilege of trial by jury."
THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
Address:
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Amar1.html
Educate yourself on:
The Barron Contrarians
Having worked hard to understand Barron, we now must work equally hard to understand the contrary view, especially if we are to make full sense of the language and logic of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In the fifteen years before Barron, a considerable number of weighty lawyers implied in passing or stated explicitly that various provisions in the Bill did limit states.
Writing for the Court in 1819, Justice William Johnson obliquely suggested that the Seventh Amendment's guarantee of civil juries applied to states; and the following year he stated even more explicitly in a separate concurrence that the double jeopardy clause "operates equally upon both state and federal governments," although even here, his statement was not free from ambiguity.
He may simply have meant that the clause applied whenever either of two prosecutions for the same underlying conduct was federal, even if the other was by state officials in state court for a state law crime.
That same year, however, the New York Supreme Court stated in dictum that the double jeopardy clause "operates upon state courts" even where both prosecutions were for state law crimes.
In 1824, this view of the double jeopardy clause was pressed in the Massachusetts Supreme Court, yet neither the government's attorney nor the judges appeared to challenge it - perhaps because even without the clause, the Commonwealth recognized a common law double jeopardy right at least as broad.
The following year, William Rawle published a widely read treatise on the Constitution in which he argued at length that virtually all the general provisions of the Bill of Rights bound states.
And as late as 1833, the year Barron came down, we find Justice Baldwin on circuit implying that the Second and Fourth Amendments applied against states ----