Thank you. Do you mind me asking how you know this?
Sure, and a great question.
One reason is that I am lucky enough to be a really old fart that grew up in the mid-Atlantic states at a time when the term was still in common usage. It was not at all unusual to be told "You'll have to answer for that!" when I made minor transgressions.
To 'answer for' always referred to sanctioning and punishment. It was not a reference to questioning, it was a promise of a rather severe whopping.
The section referred to is yet another protection found in our Constitution. It was a limiting act saying that you could not be tried for major crimes, particularly those that normally carried the ultimate sanction, death, without first convincing a body of citizens that there actually was a crime and that there was actually enough evidence to at the least suspect that you were the perpetrator. It was a major change from the then existing system where someone of Nobility or Position could have someone tried simply on an accusation. It was one of the first barriers to conviction from authority.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion