![]() Procedural due process protects individuals from the coercive power of government by ensuring that adjudication processes, under valid laws, are fair and impartial. The distinction arises from the words "of law" in the phrase "due process of law". Substantive due process is to be distinguished from procedural due process. Whether the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments were intended to serve that function continues to be a matter of scholarly as well as judicial discussion and dissent. Substantive due process demarks the line between those acts that courts hold to be subject to government regulation or legislation and those that courts place beyond the reach of governmental interference. Constitution, which prohibit the federal and state governments, respectively, from depriving any person of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Courts have asserted that such protections come from the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments to the U.S. ![]() ![]() Substantive due process is a principle in United States constitutional law that allows courts to establish and protect certain fundamental rights from government interference, even if procedural protections are present or the rights are unenumerated (not specifically mentioned) elsewhere in the U.S. Examination of the Court's approach to rationality demonstrates the need for a broader conception of legislative rationality – one that includes "constitutive ends." Recognizing constitutive legislative ends, combined with an information-forcing rule for revealing those ends, can both improve democratic discourse in the legislature and lead to a richer and more intellectually honest form of rationality review.Not to be confused with Procedural due process. Comparison reveals the Court's limited conception of rationality, which allows the Court to avoid difficult questions in pursuit of seemingly uncontroversial instrumental ends. This Article examines the Court's view of how rationality should (and by virtue of the power of judicial review must) feature in legislation by tracing the development of rationality review and comparing it to more rigorous understandings of political rationality. Since then, the Court has developed ad hoc a conception of the proper role of government that has become almost entirely utilitarian in nature. At one time, that understanding was based in a widely held conception of the "police power," but the connection to the police power was severed after the Court's decision in United States v. Developed haphazardly over time, rationality review is not the product of either a considered formula or a particular theory of constitutional law, and though it is clothed in the language of rationality, it represents the Court's own decidedly intuitive understanding of the proper sphere of state regulation. Through the "rational basis" test, the Supreme Court asserts the authority to assess whether laws are "rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest." Although it gives the Court an effective substantive veto over all legislation, rationality review is poorly understood and under-theorized.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |