The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old October 15, 2013, 09:48 AM   #1
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.
JimDandy is offline  
Old October 15, 2013, 08:14 PM   #2
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!
Wreck-n-Crew is offline  
Old October 15, 2013, 08:32 PM   #3
Tom Servo
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 12,153
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?
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old October 15, 2013, 08:58 PM   #4
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?
JimDandy is offline  

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:16 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2016 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent:
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.04605 seconds with 7 queries