English tyrants were happy to impose heavy fines against the king's enemies, thus allowing political prisoners to be jailed for nonpayment.
By 1909, the Supreme Court decided to avoid involvement when Government showed it was willing to confiscate large amounts of private property. It suggested it could, only if the Government followed an established set of rules created by the legislature.
In 1998, the Supreme Court finally did step in. The Federal Government had decided that is was a good idea to confiscate over $357,000 from Hosep Bajakajian because he did not feel the need to tell the authorities he was leaving the country with his own money. Bajakajian had broken no law other failing to report possession of over $10,000 while leaving the United States. The Bajakajian standard for the Excessive Fines Clause, established by Justice Clarence Thomas, is now “grossly disproportional to the gravity of a defendant's offense.”

The term "grossly disproportional" remains as arbitrary as “excessive.” The fact that the Government was perfectly willing to seize over 35 times the amount of private property as the defendant had “smuggled” should show the danger involved. Stay vigilant for news of astonishingly large fines being foist on people, especially in the context of “national security” and drug war offenses. These fines go hand in hand with civil forfeiture abuses. The potential for corrupt politicians to attack donors to their opposition with outrageous fines is certainly plausible in America today.