| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | '''Substantive due process''' is the idea that the due process clause of the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] regulates not only the procedures due a citizen, before revoking a right, but also what rights may be revoked at all. | + | '''Substantive due process''' is the idea that the due process clause of |
| | + | the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] regulates not only the procedures due a |
| | + | citizen, before revoking a right, but also what rights may be revoked at |
| | + | all. It has become a legal theory tied uniquely in the area of |
| | + | [[fundamental rights]] jurisprudence - or, the protection of certain |
| | + | inalienable, yet undefined constitutional rights. [[Antonin Scalia]] |
| | + | sharply dissents from almost all cases upholding substantive due |
| | + | process, believing that there are no fundamental rights if they are not |
| | + | defined by the constitution, or discoverable from American history. |
| | | | |
| − | == Lochner Era == | + | == Lochner Era, and Before == |
| | + | 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'' |
| | + | was the first to suggest that the Constitution protects certain rights |
| | + | (free use of "property," in this case) from intrusion by the government, |
| | + | even if constitutional safeguards had led to a procedurally "correct" |
| | + | taking.<ref>I'll do the cites later</ref> Although ''Dred Scott'' was |
| | + | thankfully overturned by the [[Reconstruction]] Amendments, the seeds of |
| | + | substantive due process were sown in the constitutional landscape. |
| | + | |
| | + | The doctrine was later, famously, picked up by the Court in ''Lochner'', |
| | + | a decision which held that federal minimum wage laws intruded too far |
| | + | into the "fundamental right" for an employee and an employer to freely |
| | + | contract. This fundamental right could not be abridged even by fair |
| | + | legislative processes. This line of jurisprudence - which came to be |
| | + | known as "economic" substantive due process - came to an abrupt end in |
| | + | the wake of the [[Great Depression]], which forced a nationwide crisis |
| | + | of conscience in the doctrines of full and free [[laissez-faire]], the |
| | + | philosophical underpinnings of ''Lochner''.<ref>See generally Casey v. |
| | + | Planned Parenthood</ref> It was fully overturned in ''West Coast |
| | + | Hotel''.<ref>cites later</ref> |
| | + | |
| | + | == Griswold Era == |
| | | | |
| − | == Griswold Era == | + | == The Roe Controversy, and its Progeny == |
| | + | |
| | + | == References == |