RSS feed for comments on this post.
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://xrlq.com/2010/07/07/a-partial-defense-of-substantive-due-process/trackback/
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
3.848 Powered by Wordpress
[...] damnum absque injuria ยป A Partial Defense of Substantive Due Process [...]
Pingback by Manifesting Abundance through Subconscious Programming | Mind Movies 2.0 Blog — July 7, 2010 @ 5:45 am
Well, my non-lawyer opinion would be two-fold.
1) When comparing the two statements the second one suggests that there are things that may not be abridged even with due process.
2) Just how much “Process” is “Due”? Can someone who has received all process which is due to them and convicted of speeding be deprived of his right to free speech?
Comment by Yu-Ain Gonnano — July 7, 2010 @ 1:09 pm
Something else I saw brought up by Clayton Cramer over at Volokh is that Due Process would apply to everyone “any person” while “PoI of citizens” would only apply to citizens.
Which seems to imply that citizens have additional protections above and beyond what may be protected by Due Process.
Comment by Yu-Ain Gonnano — July 7, 2010 @ 1:47 pm
I believe Privileges and Immunities is another way of saying “We are our own king” or, in other words, “democracy”.
Comment by nk — July 10, 2010 @ 4:49 am
My neighbor is a tympanist — he likes to practice orchestral jazz. For hours. Sometimes, his wife complains about my chimes. They need to learn to live with us and we need to learn to live with them. Constitution?
Comment by nk — July 10, 2010 @ 4:53 am
What’d you say when she complained about the chimes, nk? Windchimes or some other type?
Comment by Anwyn — July 21, 2010 @ 12:38 am
I told her her hair looked nice or something like that. Noncommittall, nonconfrontational. Yes, stained glass windchimes.
We had a stained glass artist in our village and we bought a lot of stuff from him (panels that we use as window treatments, globes, chimes) but, unfortunately, he passed away.
Comment by nk — July 22, 2010 @ 8:31 am
For you, Anwyn. http://krites.blogspot.com/2010/07/picture-for-anwyn.html
Comment by nk — July 22, 2010 @ 2:08 pm
Thanks for the pretty pic. :)
Comment by Anwyn — July 23, 2010 @ 12:48 am
Wind chimes that my neighbor had used to get stolen by unknown persons, again and again. Eventually he stopped putting them up. I wonder if the real criminal will ever be identified?
P/I questions threaten to unleash possible repeal of a huge number of governmental power grabs going back fifty or more years, whereas Due Process has been used to incorporate individual rights against state infringement for even longer. So P/I arguments are avoided like the plague by the Supremes, who don’t want to overthrow federal power in one fell swoop.
However, Clarence Thomas was absolutely, historically, rationally, legally correct in his concurring opinion that P/I was the correct way to go on the McDonald case.
Comment by mikee — July 29, 2010 @ 5:17 am