Is compulsory jury service constitutional?

[citizenjeff]

How does compulsory jury service qualify as an exception to the 13th Amendment prohibition of involuntary servitude? In Williams v. Florida (1970), the U.S. Supreme Court rejects the simplistic assumption a jury feature which existed in common law is automatically preserved in the Constitution. In fact, the Court has ruled certain features of a jury which existed in common law, are not constitutionally required in modern times. Even though some of these features are relatively significant (i.e., number of jurors, gender of jurors, the requirement that all verdicts must be unanimous), abandoning them passes constitutional muster, because there is no evidence the Framers believed the essence of jury service would be perverted by such changes. According to the Court, our Framers felt most strongly that juries should be comprised of laymen, as opposed to relying solely on judges. Who says the Framers felt it necessary to compel laymen to work for free when summoned for jury duty?

The Constitution explicitly mentions a defendant’s right to a jury trial, whereas a citizen’s “obligation” to serve as a juror is only implied (at most). Any thoughts about why the Framers didn’t bother - as they did with prison jobs and conscription - to explicitly identify jury service as one of only three types of labor Americans could be legally forced to perform? Besides jury duty, is there any other obligation as unusual and burdensome as working for free against one’s will, which the Constitution supposedly imposes by mere implication, as opposed to explicit language?

A trial by jury isn’t the only constitutional right which couldn’t possibly be upheld and administered without laborers. Why aren’t Americans legally obligated to perform all such labor? Why only jury service?

Couldn’t we regard the following as the common law definition of jury?

a body of 12 men summoned by law and sworn to hear and hand down a verdict upon a case presented in court.

If 12 men are no longer required, why is summoning jurors by law still considered a constitutional requirement?

Is there a reason to conclude compulsory jury service, as opposed to relying on jurors who serve willingly, represents the intent of the Framers?