Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
291,942
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 10:
Line 10: − Ironically, given that substantive due process would later become a tool + − of liberal jurists, the doctrine began in conservative, and extremely − regressive, decisions. The justly reviled decision ''Scott v. Sanford'' Line 32:
Line 30: − +
→Lochner Era, and Before: take out editorial comment; where is this cut & pasted from?
== Lochner Era, and Before ==
== Lochner Era, and Before ==
The justly reviled decision ''Scott v. Sanford''
was the first to suggest that the Constitution protects certain rights
was the first to suggest that the Constitution protects certain rights
(free use of "property," in this case) from intrusion by the government,
(free use of "property," in this case) from intrusion by the government,
Hotel''.<ref>cites later</ref>
Hotel''.<ref>cites later</ref>
Another famous case picked up substantive due process as a constitutional "hook" before it became popularized in the 1970s - the famous case outlawing [[miscegenation]] statutes, ''Loving v. Virginia''. The Lovings, an aptly-named, mixed-race couple, sought to have their marriage accepted in their home state of Virginia, where a conservative state house had outlawed interracial marriages. Although the Court invalidated this ban (forcing Virginia to recognize the Lovings' marriage and striking another blow against [[Jim Crow]] laws and racism) on equal protection grounds, the case included a line near the end, almost as an afterthought, describing the right to marriage as a substantive right, fundamental to human life, which the state could not lightly intrude upon.<ref>Loving v. Virginia, pincite to follow when less busy</ref> Due process, though, would not be picked up again by a discrimination case for another 40 years.<ref>Lawrence v. Texas, resting a decision to invalidate a Texas law criminalizing sodomy on substantive due process grounds, with a hint of equal protection rhetoric.</ref>
Another famous case picked up substantive due process as a constitutional "hook" before it became popularized in the 1970s - the famous case outlawing [[miscegenation]] statutes, ''Loving v. Virginia''. The Lovings,a mixed-race couple, sought to have their marriage accepted in their home state of Virginia. Although the Court invalidated this ban (forcing Virginia to recognize the Lovings' marriage and striking another blow against [[Jim Crow]] laws and racism) on equal protection grounds, the case included a line near the end, almost as an afterthought, describing the right to marriage as a substantive right, fundamental to human life, which the state could not lightly intrude upon.<ref>Loving v. Virginia, pincite to follow when less busy</ref> Due process, though, would not be picked up again by a discrimination case for another 40 years.<ref>Lawrence v. Texas, resting a decision to invalidate a Texas law criminalizing sodomy on substantive due process grounds, with a hint of equal protection rhetoric.</ref>
== Griswold Era ==
== Griswold Era ==