Arbitration clauses vs. inviolate right to Jury trial

[Michael Joseph]

Many (most?) State constitutions contain the following clause:



However, many contracts include "mandatory" arbitration clauses; that is, language to the effect that in the event there is a dispute, the parties agree to binding arbitration with no other recourse.

Considering that the People's Supreme Law states trial by Jury is inviolate -- something that cannot be violated, period -- does anybody have any experience with cases or authorities in which it was decided whether a contractual agreement to arbitration supersedes the Constitutional guarantee?

Thanks, everyone.

It is my comprehension that INVIOLATE means that a right or privilege is not violated. But since I have choice as we all do, then I have the ability to contract. And therefore I have the choice to enter into a contract as per the terms agreed. Therefore if the terms in the agreement include that arbitration will be the means for dispute resolution, then the Contract is the Law and there is no violation of any rights. Meaning IF I make a promise in an agreement then I should keep it according to my agreement.

Therefore if I cannot live with the terms of the contract then I should not make a use of the things governed by the contract - especially if the contract stipulates that the right of trial by jury stands waived. We are all grown ups and we each have full liability or we should anyways - and that being said - if we don't like the contract we should novate it - and if we cannot novate it, then we should not enter upon the contract if we cannot live with the terms.

That seems so matter of fact to me that I am surprised that I am even typing these words. Nevertheless, it is a truth. Its kind of like making a use of Yahoo mail and then saying I am not bound by the Terms of Use agreement that Yahoo, Inc. provided as part of the service.

Those who would say where is the claim and prove it stuff bore me to death. Fact is the men and women who have equity in Yahoo, Inc. have sweat and hard work in developing that product for their gain and there is no reason why JOHNNY COME LATELY should have any equity in their creation. Therefore anyone making a Use is subject to the contract called Terms of Use or Terms of Service that Yahoo, Inc provides. If you can't live with the contract then don't use the site.

Slavery is repugnant - yet if I consent to be a slave, then so be it. And yes, people consent to be slaves every day. It is called DEBT. Is their right of freedom violated? Not in the least!

Happiness Machines are made in Consent.

Now according to Johnny Bouvier to Violate is an act done in Force. Finding no force but rather mutual consent, I cannot see how I have been VIOLATED in regard to any right to jury trial - that is if I expressly waived that right in contract.

Of course I might be so weak minded as to beg rights of Usufruct UNDER another mans claim but then that would make me third party PRAYING under someone else's claim. Bowing a knee as it were. I find no need to bow as I have full access to Usufruct in my own claim. Nevertheless, each to his own according to his conscience.

Shalom,
MJ