How can California outlaw possession of magazines...

[Skans]

How can California legally outlaw the possession of large capacity magazines which were legally purchased and owned, without either:

1. Grandfathering the existing magazines;
2. provide some sort of "free" registration scheme of existing magazines; or
3. paying people for them?

I see no difference between magazines and say cell phones. Can California (or any state) outlaw the possession iPhones the same way they are doing for magazines?

[csmsss]

Under which California or federal law or statute, or Constitutional interpretation, would you judge this ban as illegal/unconstitutional?

[Skans]

I would think the US Constitutional provisions of Due Process would prohibit such a confiscatory taking of personal property. Especially when it is not necessary and a registration process can accomplish public safety goals.

[pete2]

The state can get away with anything that the citizens of the state allow. Citizens have more power than they use sometimes. Same applies to the federal gov.

[pete2]

The state can get away with anything that the citizens of the state allow. Citizens have more power than they use sometimes. Same applies to the federal gov. They can only do what we allow them to do.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Skans

I would think the US Constitutional provisions of Due Process would prohibit such a confiscatory taking of personal property. Especially when it is not necessary and a registration process can accomplish public safety goals.

Why would you think that? Can you support your view with applicable legal authority?

People think a lot of thing are true that aren't true -- especially, it seems, with regard to legal matters. And unless you reached your conclusion based on a sound understanding of the law and some solid research, there's an excellent chance that what you think is true isn't true -- unless you managed to make a lucky guess.

Most people really don't understand the law because they have not studied it. And to understand the law, one needs to actually study it. Much in the law is non-intuitive or will make sense only when one has sufficient background knowledge. You can't expect to be able to figure out what the law is or how it works just by trying to "reason it out."

[Aguila Blanca]

Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Outright declaring existing magazines as contraband without either a grandfather and/or registration provision or a compensation provision would certainly seem to run afoul of the fifth amendment. The State's argument in rebuttal would probably be that they didn't "take" anything, the owners are still at liberty to sell the contraband out of state.

Australia bought the guns they outlawed ...

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/project...aw/takings.htm

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

Outright declaring existing magazines as contraband without either a grandfather and/or registration provision or a compensation provision would certainly seem to run afoul of the fifth amendment. ...

Confiscation of contraband is not a taking for public use for which the Fifth Amendment requires compensation.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Frank Ettin

Confiscation of contraband is not a taking for public use for which the Fifth Amendment requires compensation.

If not, then what is it other than theft under color of law? If my magazine cost me $25, and the state decides tomorrow that it's no longer legal for me to own it (it was legal when I bought it and it's legal today) so I have to surrender it or destroy it -- I'm out $25. How is that any different from sticking me up at gunpoint and stealing $25 out of my wallet?

[44 AMP]

How is that any different from sticking me up at gunpoint and stealing $25 out of my wallet?

because you're not allowed to shoot back???

yes, we consider it theft, they DON'T.

Due process?? sure, they passed a bill, in accordance with legislative rules, the Gov signs it, it becomes a law. That's all the due process we need, or get, as far as they care.

They (meaning various groups in govt.) have done it before, and not just with guns or related things.

Got a prohibited weed growing in your back yard? You'll be lucky if they don't confiscate your freakin HOUSE.

own gold? sorry, you have to turn it in to the govt. (unless its jewelry or you are a registered coin collector - yes, that WAS the law in the US during the FDR years)

Do you think the govt PAID for any of the booze they confiscated during Prohibition??

The govt can get away with anything, until the govt stops itself. ANYTHING can be passed as law, and IS law, until the appropriate court (another branch of govt) declares it is not law.

The base reason why they can get away with banning X, Y, or Z and taking it from us, is that we GAVE them that ability, and we don't do enough to regulate it.

And, consider this, you are under no legal obligation to stay in CA. You can move. Practical matters like cost, work, home, family, etc., don't matter, you are not legally prohibited from moving, so you don't HAVE to put up with the law, you can go elsewhere, and the people who pass these kind of laws will be happier if you do. As long as you are not legally forbidden from moving away, they don't feel your rights are being violated. IF they even bother to consider that...

In their view, the choice is YOURS...

the fact that you may suffer great personal hardship, even financial loss in order to move is just your tough luck to them...

While I no longer remember the details, I do remember a story from the days when CA first passed their assault weapons laws, and because of the location of the magazine, Olympic target pistols were banned under the law. (there has since been an exception made for them, but at the time they were banned)

There was a teenage girl who lived in CA, an Olympic hopefull (or on the team, I forget) she contacted her legislator(s) about getting an exemption, so she could train and practice. The response she got was essentially "if you don't like the law, move!"

they'll get away with it, until they are either removed from office, or a court declares the law invalid.

I can no longer remember who said it, (and I'm not going to do a search), but I do remember reading it many years ago...

"America is at that awkward stage, its too late to work within the system, and too soon to start shooting the bastards.."

I believe we are still there....frustrating though it is.

[Skans]

Why would you think that? Can you support your view with applicable legal authority?

Frank, I'm simply asked a question - looking to learn a little here. Someone asked under what law would I think this could be illegal - I replied.

Confiscation of contraband is not a taking for public use for which the Fifth Amendment requires compensation.

The provision that Aguila quoted does not seem to be limited to takings for public use. If that were the case, then the government can ban and take away anything, so long as it doesn't use it. This is what I'm questioning - I don't know the law on this and was wondering if there are any examples either firearms related or with regard to other types of property?

Do you think the govt PAID for any of the booze they confiscated during Prohibition??

I don't know how they handled existing booze. Regardless, prohibition was a enacted by Federal Constitutional Amendment. Perhaps its implementation was contrary to other Amendments and I don't know how or if that was reconciled by the courts.

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

I can no longer remember who said it, (and I'm not going to do a search), but I do remember reading it many years ago...

"America is at that awkward stage, its too late to work within the system, and too soon to start shooting the bastards.."

I believe we are still there....frustrating though it is.

This quote made my day Thank you. I did a search and came up with:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claire_Wolfe

[g.willikers]

Democracy in action, at it's worst.
Our government was designed as a Republic based on ideas of individual rights and equal protection under the law, but has deteriorated into a democracy, mostly due to the lack of diligence by us, the citizens.
As the ancient Greeks quickly discovered, anything goes with a democracy as long as enough people want it.
Ask just about any kid in our public school what kind of government we have and the answer will rarely be "A Republic."
California is merely an example of the results.
So, it can hardly be surprising.

[doofus47]

g.wilikers

Our government was designed as a Republic based on ideas of individual rights and equal protection under the law, but has deteriorated into a democracy, mostly due to the lack of diligence by us, the citizens.

Too true. I had the privilege of listening yesterday to a conference call with Barbara Boxer.

Total disclosure: I didn't vote for either of the "big two" and was prepared to be some flavor of unhappy on Weds morning either way.

First of all it was refreshing to hear the !% talking openly about how little the problems of the manufacturing industry in this country really matter to the national economy. I know now where I stand: firmly outside the rarified air.

Second, the esteemed 5 term Senator from California was bemoaning the results of the Presidential election as her pick won the popular vote but lost the electoral college vote. She thought that the Constitution/Electoral College system needed to be changed so that the results of the Presidential election would fall in line with the popular vote.

Take aways:
1. You can be a longstanding member of Government and still not know how the government works.
2. You can be old and experienced and still not be wise nor have perspective.
3. Some people really just don't care about anything or anyone except their interests. Sometimes these people are in places of power.
4. Losing doesn't mean you have to learn.

[44 AMP]

1. You can be a longstanding member of Government and still not know how the government works.

While this is true, in Boxer's case, I think she knows quite well how Government works, she just doesn't AGREE with it, when HER choice of fuehrer didn't win.

Did you see her saying abolish/change the Electoral college when Obama won?
I didn't.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Skans

The provision that Aguila quoted does not seem to be limited to takings for public use.

The constitutional provision I cited specifically says "for public use." And for 200+ years everyone knew what that meant. Then along came Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469. What Kelo effectively did was make it so a "public use" was anything the government said might be a "public" benefit.

For those who might not know or remember the case, it involved the city of New London, Connecticut, wanting to take through eminant domain a neighborhood in the city so that a private, for-profit developer could build some upscale project that hinged on an expansion pf Pfizer Chemical's presence in New London. In other words, the city wanted to take the property but NOT build anything on it. No roads, no school, no new city hall, nothing. Their intention was to turn it over to the private developer. "So where's the public use?" you ask. And therein lies the sticky wicket -- the "public use" was to have something built that would generate more tax revenue to the city. To its everlasting disgrace, the Supreme Court bought into this logic, and allowed the City of New London to condemn the neighborhood and take the properties.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/kelo-r...rticle/776021#!

The result?

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ty-alec-torres







So the question of what constitutes a "public use" has been badly muddied by the Kelo decision. Today, there seems to be no limit on what a government entity can claim has a "public use." But ... Kelo didn't invalidate the principle that "takings" must be compensated. Which is why IMHO (as a non-lawyer) making existing, legally-owned property unlawful to possess is not a lawful act. It's a de facto confiscation and, as such, should be compensated at fair market value.

If you can find Sandra Day O'Conner's dissenting opinion on Kelo -- read it.

Wikipedia summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v..._of_New_London

[Skans]

Actually, Aguila, there are two different parts to the constitutional language you quoted. One part does deal with the taking of private property for public use. It is not this part that I am focusing on. The preceding language to the part that you are referring to is what I am focusing on:

... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...

This part seems (I could be wrong) to prohibit the government from depriving you of property without due process of law. Passing a law saying you can't have something is not "due process".

Also, even when prohibition was enacted, private possession of alcohol was not outlawed! You could no longer produce consumable alcohol or sell it. So, it would seem that making the ownership and possession of a 50 round drum magazine illegal and forcing you to relinquish this item is deprivation of property without due process of law.

[Aguila Blanca]

This part seems (I could be wrong) to prohibit the government from depriving you of property without due process of law. Passing a law saying you can't have something is not "due process".

It isn't?

[WeedWacker]

It isn't?

Aguila, I'm guessing your angle is representation leads to due process, correct?

If so, I posit two scenarios to consider.

First, that an individual moves from out of state into, say, California and does not meet the requisite legal requirements to be counted as a resident at the time of an election for representation (i.e. there is no option to voice a preference for who would represent said future citizen). at the time of this relocation into the state, this citizen brings items which are legal. Shortly after this election the Governor signs a bill that makes an item illegal and the government subsequently seizes the property. Have we had due process provided to this citizen?

Second, same scenario except the citizen arrives after the election and perhaps a few days before the ban on items. I feel this might be more cut and dried and would be recognized in the courts as a case for more lenience should the seizure be upheld.

I'd like to also point back to the text of the 5th amendment for something I noticed along with Skans:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

(See highlighted above)

I notice the clauses separated by the semicolon with "nor" setting them apart distinctly as different requirements and thoughts.

nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

If a bill is created that makes something illegal and leads to confiscation the only way to invoke this part is to refuse to comply and be charged to create a criminal case, correct? If so, confiscation is provided for outside "public use" and as such would be "highway robbery" without due process unless the citizen refuses and a criminal case is brought which allows the start of due process and the citizen's day in court but with pending criminal charges.

As evidenced, I'm not a lawyer. Like Skans, I'd like to learn something new.

[LavaTech]

Well, I'm not a lawyer but aren't we discussing ex-post facto adjudication? The Constitution already provides for that, it's felonious.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by LavaTech

Well, I'm not a lawyer but aren't we discussing ex-post facto adjudication? The Constitution already provides for that, it's felonious.

No we're not. This has nothing to do with ex post facto laws (which the Constitution specifies that Congress has no power to enact -- it doesn't make them "felonious").

Let's have a look at some court opinions on whether a law is or is not ex post facto and why or why not.

So in Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942)) the First Circuit told us why the the Federal Firearms Act is not expost facto (at 920 -921, emphasis added, footnotes omitted):

...The Federal Firearms Act is prospective only. That is, under it no one in the class described may be convicted for having transported or received either a firearm or ammunition at any time prior to its passage. In the ordinary sense, then, it is not an ex post facto law. But the appellant contends that it is an ex post facto law as applied to him because it imposes upon him an additional penalty for a crime which he committed and for which he was convicted before the Act was passed. The cases upon which he relies are [Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277, 18 L.Ed. 356; Ex Parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333, 377, 18 L.Ed. 366, and Pierce v. Carskadon, 16 Wall. 234, 21 L.Ed. 276.

The Supreme Court in Cummings v. Missouri and in Pierce v. Carskadon struck down as ex post facto laws and therefore unconstitutional under Article I § 10, provisions of a state constitution and of a state statute, respectively, requiring the taking of a test oath containing affirmations of past loyalty to the United States in acts and deeds, and even loyalty in words, desires and sympathies, in the first case as a pre-requisite to pursuing certain professions and avocations, and in the second case as a prerequisite to filing a motion for a rehearing in a judicial proceeding of a specified type. In Ex Parte Garland the Supreme Court struck down as an ex post facto law, and therefore unconstitutional under Article I § 9, an act of Congress requiring the taking of a similar but less far reaching oath as a prerequisite to admission to practice before the Supreme Court of the United States. At first glance these cases may seem to support the contention of the appellant, but an examination of the opinions shows that they do not. In these cases the Supreme Court held the legislation invalid because it concluded that the test prescribed was not a test of fitness to practice the professions or avocations in question or to file a motion in court, and so that the legislation, in effect, imposed either an added punishment for a past crime or a punishment for a past act which was not punishable under the law as it stood when the act was done. In the dissenting opinions in these cases it is cogently argued that the statutes under consideration were not ex post facto laws at all, but we need not enter that controversy because even under the rule established by the court in those cases, as it was later developed, we do not think that the Federal Firearms Act is ex post facto.

In Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U.S. 114, 128, 9 S.Ct. 231, 235, 32 L.Ed. 623, cited and quoted with approval in Hawker v. New York, 170 U.S. 189, 198, 18 S.Ct. 573, 42 L.Ed. 1002, the Supreme Court, after noting that the doctrine of Cummings v. Missouri had been affirmed in Pierce v. Carskadon, said with reference to the Cummings and Garland cases "They only determine that one who is in the enjoyment of a right to preach and teach the Christian religion as a priest of a regular church, and one who has been admitted to practice the profession of the law, cannot be deprived of the right to continue in the exercise of their respective professions by the exaction from them of an oath as to their past conduct, respecting matters which have no connection with such professions". The court then went on to say: "The constitution of Missouri and the act of congress in question in those cases were designed to deprive parties of their right to continue in their professions for past acts, or past expressions of desires and sympathies, many of which had no bearing upon their fitness to continue in their professions."

In Hawker v. New York, supra, a case in which the Supreme Court upheld as valid a statute of New York which prevented one who had been convicted of a felony from thereafter practicing medicine, even though the conviction ante-dated the passage of the statute, the test is indicated by which the validity of a statute of the sort under consideration may be determined. In this case the court clearly indicates that the test is not the form in which the legislation is cast, but its substance, and that if, regardless of form, the statute in substance inflicts an additional punishment for a past offense, it is bad as an ex post facto law. But, on the other hand, this case establishes that if the statute is a bona fide regulation of conduct which the legislature has power to regulate, it is not bad as an ex post facto law even though the right to engage in the conduct is made to depend upon past behaviour, even behaviour before the passage of the regulatory act. This case also establishes that conviction of a crime may be made the conclusive test of past behaviour.

Thus if the past conduct which is made the test of the right to engage in some activity in the future is not the kind of conduct which indicates unfitness to participate in the activity, it will be assumed, as it must be, that the purpose of the statute is to impose an additional penalty for the past conduct. If, however, the past conduct can reasonably be said to indicate unfitness to engage in the future activity the assumption will be otherwise. So, in conformity with this principle, the cases cited above establish that a state cannot make past loyalty to the United States extending to words, desires and sympathies a test of fitness to teach, preach, practice law, or file a motion in court, and Congress cannot make such loyalty the test of fitness to practice before the Supreme Court of the United States. The constitutional provisions which prevent the passage of ex post facto laws by either a state or the federal government bar the way. But, on the other hand, a state can make conviction for a felony a test of fitness to practice medicine.

By the test indicated the Federal Firearms Act is clearly not an ex post facto law invalid under Article I, § 9, of the Constitution. Looking at the Act as a whole it is abundantly plain that in enacting it Congress was in no way interested in imposing an additional penalty upon those who at some time in the past had been convicted of a crime of violence. In the Act Congress sought to protect the public by preventing the transportation and possession of firearms and ammunition by those who, by their past conduct, had demonstrated their unfitness to be entrusted with such dangerous instrumentalities, and certainly no one can seriously contend that the test of unfitness which Congress established is irrelevant to this purpose. Surely it is reasonable to conclude that one who has been convicted of a crime of violence is the kind of a person who cannot safely be trusted to possess and transport arms and ammunition, and the fact that he may have reformed or that in some cases the test may operate harshly, does not invalidate the test. Hawker v. New York, 170 U.S. 189, 197, 18 S. Ct. 573, 42 L.Ed. 1002. See, also, McDonald v. Massachusetts, 180 U.S. 311, 21 S. Ct. 389, 45 L.Ed. 542....

In De Veau v. Braisted, 363 U.S. 144, 80 S.Ct. 1146, 4 L.Ed.2d 1109 (1960), The Supreme Court distinguished between a law enacted to punish past conduct and a law intended regulate present conduct (at 160):

...Finally, § 8 of the Waterfront Commission Act is neither a bill of attainder nor an ex post facto law. ...The mark of an ex post facto law is the imposition of what can fairly be designated punishment for past acts. The question in each case where unpleasant consequences are brought to bear upon an individual for prior conduct, is whether the legislative aim was to punish that individual for past activity, or whether the restriction of the individual comes about as a relevant incident to a regulation of a present situation, such as the proper qualifications for a profession. See Hawker v. People of State of New York, 170 U.S. 189, 18 S.Ct. 573, 42 L.Ed. 1002. No doubt is justified regarding the legislative purpose of § 8. The proof is overwhelming that New York sought not to punish ex-felons, but to devise what was felt to be a much-needed scheme of regulation of the waterfront, and for the effectuation of that scheme it became important whether individuals had previously been convicted of a felony....

Rejecting a challenge on ex post facto grounds of the Lautenberg Amendment, the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Georgia wrote (National Association of Government Employees v. Barrett, 968 F. Supp. 1564, at 1575 - 1576):

...Plaintiffs' claim that § 922(g)(9) violates the Ex Post Facto Clause fails because § 922(g)(9) is not retrospective.

Plaintiffs' argument that § 922(g)(9) is retrospective is based on the fact that § 922(g)(9) prohibits an individual convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence from possessing a firearm even if the individual's conviction occurred prior to the effective date of § 922(g)(9). Defendants counter this argument by pointing out that the activity prohibited by § 922(g)(9) is the post-enactment possession of a firearm, not the pre-enactment misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. Defendants' argument comports with the decision of United States v. Brady, 26 F.3d 282 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 894, 115 S.Ct. 246, 130 L.Ed.2d 168 (1994) In Brady, the Second Circuit addressed an ex post facto challenge to § 922(g)(1) whereby a defendant argued that his 1951 felony conviction could not serve as a an element of the offense prohibited by that section of the gun control laws. In rejecting defendant's challenge, the court held:

Regardless of the date of [defendant's] prior conviction, the crime of being a felon in possession of a firearm was not committed until after the effective date of the statute .... by [the date of defendant's conviction under § 922(g)(1), defendant] had more than adequate notice that it was illegal for him to possess a firearm because of his status as a convicted felon, and he could have conformed his conduct to the requirements of the law. Therefore, the Ex Post Facto clause was not violated by the use of a 1951 felony conviction as a predicate for a violation of § 922(g).

Brady, 26 F.3d at 291. Cf. Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 269 n. 24, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 1499 n. 24, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994) ("[A] statute `is not made retroactive merely because it draws upon antecedent facts for its operation.'") (quoting Cox v. Hart, 260 U.S. 427, 434-37, 43 S.Ct. 154, 157, 67 L.Ed. 332 (1922)); United States v. Allen, 886 F.2d 143, 146 (8th Cir.1989) ("So long as the actual crime for which a defendant is being sentenced occurred after the effective date of the new statute, there is no ex post facto violation.")....

Ex post facto essentially means being subject to criminal sanctions today for an act performed in the past which was legal when performed. That is different from from being subject to criminal liability for the continued possession of a thing after the effective date of a law making that thing illegal for you to possess.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by WeedWacker

Aguila, I'm guessing your angle is representation leads to due process, correct?

In part, yes.

The other part is that the law outlaws possession. If you are found to be in possession of now-contraband "high capacity" or "large capacity" ammunition feeding devices, you would be arrested and charged under the law. You would then be tried in a court of law, presumably with the aforementioned "large capacity" ammunition feeding devices entered into evidence. The trial is your due process. If you prevail at trial, you should then be given back your property. Since you would, in all likelihood, NOT prevail at trial, your magazines would then be forfeit as a result of the trial (your due process) confirming that they are unlawful for you to possess.

[WeedWacker]

The other part is that the law outlaws possession. If you are found to be in possession of now-contraband "high capacity" or "large capacity" ammunition feeding devices, you would be arrested and charged under the law.

This would be assuming that said law was enacted and the grace period (if any) had expired and you were to be found with said contraband after the law went into effect. I agree.

However, when possessing a once legal item while it is still legal to possess and possession continues into sunset of the law without representation in courts seems to lead to loss of property by command of law without due process unless you are arrested and face criminal charges (possibly a felony). It seems very serious and overreaching to me, especially concerning an item valued at less than $100 when it was legal to possess, without allowing due process with immunity to criminality (or some such legal particulars) where all that happens is the item must be destroyed following arguments if you lose.

[Aguila Blanca]

WW --

I didn't say I think the new CA law is fair or just. I simply don't think it runs afoul of due process. First, the law was enacted by duly elected legislators, and signed by a duly elected governor.

Next, as I mentioned earlier i this thread, the state's response to claims of uncompensated taking could be that they didn't "take" anything, owners are at liberty to sell the magazines out of state.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by WeedWacker

...It seems very serious and overreaching to me,...

Here's yet another example of the most common sort of error folks make when thinking about or discussing the law. Bluntly, it doesn't matter how it seems to you. Your perspective on things isn't how the courts will rule.

As I wrote in post 6:

...People think a lot of thing are true that aren't true -- especially, it seems, with regard to legal matters. And unless you reached your conclusion based on a sound understanding of the law and some solid research, there's an excellent chance that what you think is true isn't true -- unless you managed to make a lucky guess.

Most people really don't understand the law because they have not studied it. And to understand the law, one needs to actually study it. Much in the law is non-intuitive or will make sense only when one has sufficient background knowledge. You can't expect to be able to figure out what the law is or how it works just by trying to "reason it out."....

There has been an enormous amount of litigation on due process, both under the Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment. So courts have written a great deal about what due process means and how principles of due process apply (or don't apply) in various contexts.

Any useful understanding of due process must be based on those court decisions. While you can sit in your easy chair and think about what due process means, your ratiocinations will not be well calculated to lead you to an understanding of what due process means in law, i. e., how the concepts of due process are applied by courts to decide matters in controversy.