Legal Doctrine/Philosphy for Due Process form previous court - History question

JimDandy · October 15, 2013, 09:48 AM

In my past searches, I came across a (Chief Justice) Court who defined due process in a (vaguely remembered paraphrasing) way similar to- the law has to work, it has to be functional, it has to make sense, and it shouldn't be easy to break accidentally, or or so poorly worded as to inflict harm on The People by accident.

Which Court was this, and is this doctrine still in force? Upon further searching the closest I can come to finding it again is a description of Substantive Due Process.

Wreck-n-Crew · October 15, 2013, 08:14 PM

More details of the case would be helpful. Sounds like a due process issue, How was it gun related?

Due process:is the legal requirement that the state must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person. Most commonly thought of as the reading of rights or the proof of a search warrant but it's a little more than that.

**Tom Servo** · October 15, 2013, 08:32 PM

Quote:

How was it gun related?

Posts in L&CR don't have to be strictly gun-related.

Jim, might you be thinking of Footnote 4?

JimDandy · October 15, 2013, 08:58 PM

That might be part of it, but it was talked about like it was some big sweeping doctrinal change of the Court and it was attributed to the (Chief Justice) Court. Substantive Due Process sounds similar enough it could be what I'm thinking of, but it's not quite the same to be exact. It's kind of driving me nuts that I can't find it again.

The way it was described it could just as easily challenge a ban on dancing on your roof at midnight during an eclipse as it could challenge a permit to get a license to get a dispensation that you need for the first permit.

Is that substantive due process?

October 15, 2013, 09:48 AM	#1
JimDandy Senior Member Join Date: August 8, 2012 Posts: 2,556	Legal Doctrine/Philosphy for Due Process form previous court - History question In my past searches, I came across a (Chief Justice) Court who defined due process in a (vaguely remembered paraphrasing) way similar to- the law has to work, it has to be functional, it has to make sense, and it shouldn't be easy to break accidentally, or or so poorly worded as to inflict harm on The People by accident. Which Court was this, and is this doctrine still in force? Upon further searching the closest I can come to finding it again is a description of Substantive Due Process.

October 15, 2013, 08:14 PM	#2
Wreck-n-Crew Senior Member Join Date: March 8, 2013 Location: Ohio Posts: 1,820	More details of the case would be helpful. Sounds like a due process issue, How was it gun related? Due process:is the legal requirement that the state must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person. Most commonly thought of as the reading of rights or the proof of a search warrant but it's a little more than that. __________________ If you ever have to use a firearm, *you don't get to pick the scenario!*

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

October 15, 2013, 08:58 PM	#4
JimDandy Senior Member Join Date: August 8, 2012 Posts: 2,556	That might be part of it, but it was talked about like it was some big sweeping doctrinal change of the Court and it was attributed to the (Chief Justice) Court. Substantive Due Process sounds similar enough it could be what I'm thinking of, but it's not quite the same to be exact. It's kind of driving me nuts that I can't find it again. The way it was described it could just as easily challenge a ban on dancing on your roof at midnight during an eclipse as it could challenge a permit to get a license to get a dispensation that you need for the first permit. Is that substantive due process?