Difference between revisions of "Talk:Substantive due process"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(New page: ''"AmesG also had substantial input to this article: Substantive due process."'' --I am mightily inmpressed! --~~~~) |
(Loving v Virginia) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
''"AmesG also had substantial input to this article: Substantive due process."'' | ''"AmesG also had substantial input to this article: Substantive due process."'' | ||
--I am mightily inmpressed! --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 03:55, 29 April 2007 (EDT) | --I am mightily inmpressed! --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 03:55, 29 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Loving v Virginia == | ||
| + | Why is there a long discussion of this case, when it didn't even involve substantive due process? One line of dicta does not justify it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:35, 6 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 23:35, May 6, 2007
"AmesG also had substantial input to this article: Substantive due process." --I am mightily inmpressed! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 03:55, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
Loving v Virginia
Why is there a long discussion of this case, when it didn't even involve substantive due process? One line of dicta does not justify it. RSchlafly 19:35, 6 May 2007 (EDT)