One of the biggest triggers of the Revolution was Parliament’s deprivation of our Founding Generation’s right to trial by jury. The Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms (1775) put the Crown on notice: "[S]tatutes have been passed for extending the jurisdiction of courts of Admiralty and Vice-Admiralty beyond their ancient limits; for depriving us of the accustomed and inestimable privilege of trial by jury, in cases affecting both life and property." The Declaration of Independence repeated the charge.
By the 20th century, the growth of Statism began to collide with traditional conceptions of "suits at common law." Governmental “rights” of agencies such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration obviously had no precedent in common law, as it existed in 1791. As one should expect, jury participation in those cases was limited. Modern jurists began to regard civil jury trial neither "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," (1937), nor "fundamental to the American scheme of justice," (1968).

The Founders lived, like, 200 years ago, dude. How can judges today possibly determine the original meaning of ambiguous texts like the Bill of Rights? Everyone knows constitutions are meant to endure over time, and unless your interpretation is flexible and responsive to changing circumstances, what can you do? The amendment process is just so difficult, requiring a true national consensus and all. Why would we let the dead hand of prior generations control important contemporary issues? It is so hard to find the meaning of Constitutional text that does not clarify itself in a way that some of us want today. No sane person would think the Framers intended very specific meanings of words in 1791 to control our ambition to concentrate permanent power in the hands of the State. This is the Living Constitution, brought to you by your 21st century oppressors.