This is probably a good time to put the concept of federal common law in perspective. And the main point is that state law already existed. The new federal government was not setting out to write its own version of common law. Criminal law would grow and expand as the needs of the new government required new thinking. But the disputes that arose between you and your neighbor would be resolved in the courts of whatever state you lived in. This was true even if the two disputants lived in different states, as the venue would depend on where the actual injustice had occurred.
The idea of a federal common law implies the new federal burecracy felt the need to provide a "non-biased" forum for litigants who were not from the same states. It is not that one did not exist. Only that a neutral court might be considered more even minded.
Hopefully from this perspective, the entry bar existing at the federal level makes some sense.
Amendment VII
Original:
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 reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Considerations:
This is too far off current language to just try to parse it.
Following are key points:
Cases are basically those involving money damages.
The $20 threshold has never been amended. However, there is a threshold for bringing a case in Federal court at all, and it is, for this type of cases, $75,000.
The judge is forbidden to substitute his own judgement for that of the jury on facts tried.
Effective Rule:
The Federal Courts will only hear suits for damages when the parties are from different states, and the amount involved is more than $75,000. All such cases will be heard by a jury and the judge is forbidden to substitute his own judgement for that of the jury on any facts tried. If parties are from the same state they will be heard in state court.
pg 42
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx