Portal:Supreme Court of the United States

“ For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history: Exorbitant tolls undermine other constitutional liberties. Excessive fines can be used, for example, to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies, as the Stuarts’ critics learned several centuries ago. ”

“ Writing a few years before our Constitution was adopted, Blackstone–“whose works constituted the preeminent authority on English law for the founding generation,” Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 715 (1999) –explained that the prohibition on excessive fines contained in the English Bill of Rights “had a retrospect to some unprecedented proceedings in the court of king’s bench.” ”

“ The Charter of Liberties of Henry I, issued in 1101, stated that “ [i] f any of my barons or men shall have committed an offence he shall not give security to the extent of forfeiture of his money, as he did in the time of my father, or of my brother, but according to the measure of the offence so shall he pay....” ”

“ N. C. Const., Decl. of Rights, Art. X (1776) , in 5 id., at 2788; Pa. Const., Art. IX, §13 (1790) , in id., at 3101; S. C. Const., Art. IX, §4 (1790) , in 6 id., at 3264; Va. Const., Bill of Rights, §9 (1776) , in 7 id., at 3813. Vermont had a clause specifying that “all fines shall be proportionate to the offences.” Vt. Const., ch. II, §XXIX (1786) , in id., at 3759. Georgia’s 1777 Constitution had an excessive fines clause, Art. LIX, but its 1789 Constitution did not. And the Northwest Ordinance provided that “ [a] ll fines shall be moderate; and no cruel or unusual punishments inflicted.” ”