Changes

clean up & uniformity
Line 4: Line 4:  
Substantive due process is the idea that the due process clause of                                       
 
Substantive due process is the idea that the due process clause of                                       
 
the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] regulates not only the procedures due a                                           
 
the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] regulates not only the procedures due a                                           
−
citizen, before revoking a right (procedural due process)<ref>Procedural due process is dealt with in the [[Mathews v. Eldridge]] framework.</ref>, but also what rights may be revoked at all.   
+
citizen, before revoking a right (procedural due process),<ref>Procedural due process is dealt with in the [[Mathews v. Eldridge]] framework.</ref> but also what rights may be revoked at all.   
    
It has become a legal theory tied uniquely in the area of                                                 
 
It has become a legal theory tied uniquely in the area of                                                 
Line 14: Line 14:     
===Standard of Review===
 
===Standard of Review===
−
Substantive due process protects all rights from deprivation without [[rational basis review| rational basis]] - that is to say, the Government may not burden exercise of a right without having a reason for doing so.  However, this reason may be pretextual or barely sufficient under rational basis review, and thus the protections of substantive due process for blanket rights are very weak indeed.<ref>[[Lawrence v. Texas]] may have changed this.  See the article for a discussion.</ref>
+
Substantive due process protects all rights from deprivation without [[rational basis review|rational basis]] - that is to say, the Government may not burden exercise of a right without having a reason for doing so.  However, this reason may be pretextual or barely sufficient under rational basis review, and thus the protections of substantive due process for blanket rights are very weak indeed.<ref>[[Lawrence v. Texas]] may have changed this.  See the article for a discussion.</ref>
    
Rights that are deemed "fundamental," though, may only be abridged if a compelling state interest exists, and the abridgment is narrowly tailored to suit that interest.  In other words, to abridge a fundamental right, the state must pass "[[strict scrutiny]]."   
 
Rights that are deemed "fundamental," though, may only be abridged if a compelling state interest exists, and the abridgment is narrowly tailored to suit that interest.  In other words, to abridge a fundamental right, the state must pass "[[strict scrutiny]]."   
Block, SkipCaptcha, apieditor, Automoderated users, Bots, edit, ratelimit-exempt
58,560

edits