Difference between revisions of "Talk:Substantive due process"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Loving v Virginia)
Line 4: Line 4:
 
== Loving v Virginia ==
 
== 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)
 
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)
 +
 +
:Because the line at the end was picked up by later decisions as a justification for SDP.  Trust me.  I'm going over this case now.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 19:40, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Revision as of 18:40, 6 May 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)

Because the line at the end was picked up by later decisions as a justification for SDP. Trust me. I'm going over this case now.-AmesGyo! 19:40, 6 May 2007 (EDT)