Talk:Due Process Clause

Untitled

I believe there is now good reason to update this page to address the new interpretation of "due process" posited by Attorney General Eric holder - specifically the idea that "judicial process" is not inherent to "due process." this is, to my knowledge a new interpretation of the concept of due process and is at the root of the new policy justifying the killing of US citizens without trial. See his remarks at Northwestern University in March 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.66.108.242 (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Huh?

How does an 1886 case follow an 1893 case?

Quote:" Fifth Amendment due process was first applied to corporations in 1893 by the Supreme Court in Noble v. Union River Logging.[10] Noble was followed by in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad in 1886." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.54.229 (talk) 12:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The section titled "Violation via federal judges' right to arbitrary procedure" seems dubious.

This section should probably be removed - the entire thing is dubious. The one precedential case cited (Pierson v. Ray, 386 US 547 (1967)) upheld the common law rule that a judge cannot be sued for entering a verdict. It did not establish a "judge's right to arbitrary procedure" or to act "maliciously and corruptly". The other two cases cited (Tsitrin v. Lettow and Tsitrin v. Vitaliano) are not precedential. The only accessible reference cited in the section is to a website "Coalition Against Judicial Fraud" that appears to be maintained by Mr. Tsitrin himself (whom I suspect is the author of this segment of the Due Process Clause article). I am putting a superscript at the section's heading declaring it's dubiosity. Qdiderot (talk) 07:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC) On second thought I don't think a dubioussuperscript is appropriate - the section (which is shown below) should just be removed entirely.

"Violation via federal judges' right to arbitrary procedure[edit]

Analyzing federal judges' rights to act "maliciously and corruptly" (Pierson v. Ray) and to act as parties to the case via substituting parties' argument with judges' imaginings of what parties' argument is ought to be (including complete inversion of parties' actual argument) (Tsitrin v. Lettow, Tsitrin v. Vitaliano), the site for Coalition Against Judicial Fraud argues that those rights render the very notion of "due process of the law" meaningless, since the actual "process of the law" as currently practiced is arbitrary by design,[41] and that the only way to give meaning to the "due process of the law" is for the legislature to deny judges those rights.[42]" Any objections? Qdiderot (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Due process for all persons under authority of US or only for US citizens?

Currently, the last sentence of the introduction says, "Due process ensures the rights and equality of all citizens." Should it not say "of any person" to reflect what the text of the amendments says? Or has "person" as used in the amendments been consistently interpreted as citizen? This does not seem to be the case. Ricbep (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure, and that's an interesting question, but I dropped in here to propose an edit to this sentence anyway. "Due process ensures the rights and equality of all citizens" is a statement of effect, which is arguable; one can argue that the due process clauses fail to protect every citizens' rights and equality. I'd change it to "The due process clauses are intended to ensure the rights and equality of all citizens." Any objections? I'd be fine with changing the phrase "all citizens" to something else... perhaps "everyone subject to the US Constitution"? (The US constitution clearly does not apply to non-US citizens who are outside US borders and territories, but I believe it is routinely applied to non-citizens caught up in the US legal system.) Leperflesh (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I think that the constitution's use of the term 'Citizen' is fairly limited. For federal matters, it only concerns issues like eligibility for office, voting rights, etc. It also arises in the particular context of managing relations between individual people and specific states, as in Articles 3 and 4. Everywhere else, the terms 'Person' and 'People' are used, which is why most constitutional rights, including Due Process, are supposed to apply to everyone in the US, regardless of how they got there. jxm (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Generally, the answer is yes: non-citizens are protected by the Due Process Clauses when they are inside the United States. Voting, eligibility for public office and some government jobs, and entry into the US (obtaining visas, clearing customs/immigration) are the major exceptions. AHeneen (talk) 03:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Should the title be modified to "Due Process Clause of the US Constitution"?

As this article is about the Due Process clauses of the US Constitution. Eni2dad (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)enidad2

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Due Process Clause. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://students.law.umich.edu/mlr/archive/105/2/hawkins.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120214061706/http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/pubs/rp/1998-99/99rp20.htm to http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/pubs/rp/1998-99/99rp20.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081019233856/http://www.saf.org:80/LawReviews/Amar1.html to http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Amar1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

an incorporation in 1877

The article states "Incorporation started in 1897 with a takings case" but I believe this is incorrect, as Pennoyer v Neff states what is essentially an incorporation of the right to collaterally attack judgments made without jurisdiction: Since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, the validity of such judgments may be directly questioned, and their enforcement in the State resisted, on the ground that proceedings in a court of justice to determine the personal rights and obligations of parties over whom that court has no jurisdiction do not constitute due process of law. 65.118.97.26 (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Correction of opening sentence.

The opening sentence stated that the Due Process Clause "prohibits arbitrary deprivation of 'life, liberty, or property' by the government except as authorized by law." This is incorrect in two respects. First, a deprivation without due process need not be arbitrary. The government might have a good reason for it, but it would still be prohibited. Second, the government cannot enact a law authorizing a violation of due process; if it did, a court would strike it down. I assume that the editor who wrote "except as authorized by law" was trying to avoid using the phrase "due process of law" to explain the Due Process Clause. But that editor did not do so correctly. Maurice Magnus (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)