The due process clause nobody reads
The 14th Amendment's due process clause has been interpreted to protect certain fundamental rights through the doctrine of substantive due process. This interpretation has faced scrutiny, particularly following the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, which challenged the constitutional basis for rights established by previous rulings. The article argues for a clearer constitutional foundation for rights rather than relying on judicial interpretations that may change with court compositions.
- ▪The due process clause of the 14th Amendment governs how the government can deprive individuals of life, liberty, or property.
- ▪Substantive due process, a doctrine developed by courts, claims to protect certain fundamental liberties regardless of procedural fairness.
- ▪The recent Dobbs decision highlighted the fragility of rights based on substantive due process, as it overruled Roe v. Wade due to a lack of textual grounding.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
The 14th Amendment’s due process clause says no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. It’s a procedural guarantee — it governs how the government takes something from you, not which rights you hold. That sentence, read in full, leaves no room for the doctrine that courts spent the 20th century building from it. That doctrine is called substantive due process. It holds that the due process clause protects certain liberties so fundamental that the government can’t infringe them regardless of how fair the procedure is. The word “substantive” appears nowhere in the Constitution. Courts constructed the entire framework. Recommended Stories Fight federal healthcare fraud — but do it compassionately States already have pharmacy deserts.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at Washington Examiner.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from Washington Examiner
