Dworkin's Wishful-Thinkers Constitution Essay

Winnebago County argued that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment only protected citizens from actions by the State and not by a private actor.

In contemporary America it can be argued that nothing is more contentious and controversial of an issue than abortion. From the vehement pro-life movement to the impassioned pro-choice coalition, this policy issue is one that has become increasingly important in our society. This debate has raised important questions regarding the value of human life, at what stage of development does a fetus have it’s constitutionally ensured rights take hold over that of the mother and at what stage can a state start regulating abortions.

The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be “deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." Due process is one of many protections the Bill of Rights gives citizens against the government, and being a ‘process’ the term suggests a procedure in its method of protection. “The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states. These words have as their central promise an assurance that all levels of American government must operate within the law ("legality") and provide fair procedures (Strauss, n.d.).” The Fifth Amendment limits the power of the federal government and the Fourteenth Amendment specifically limits the power of state (and local) governments.

In 1973, the Supreme Court made a decision in one of the most controversial cases in history, the case of Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)), in which abortion was legalized and state anti-abortion statues were struck down for being unconstitutional. This essay will provide a brief history and analysis of the issues of this case for both the woman’s rights and the states interest in the matter. Also, this essay will address the basis for the court ruling in Roe’s favor and the effects this decision has had on subsequent cases involving a woman’s right to choose abortion in the United States. The court’s decision created legal precedent for several subsequent abortion restriction cases and has led to the development of legislation to protect women’s health rights. Although the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade was a historic victory for women’s rights, it is still an extremely controversial subject today and continues to be challenged by various groups.

It allows for all individuals, whether they are citizens of the United States or not, to have equal opportunity within the judicial system. The due process clause in both the fifth and fourteenth amendments, limit the powers of the federal and state governments. Requiring state and federal law enforcement and judicial systems to meet certain criteria through the arrest, detainment, and trial processes, ensures that no (or limited) abuses of power can occur. Most of the rights that due process defends, guarantee reasonable, non-assumptive protections; right to a trial, counsel, to know charges of the alleged crime, to face one’s accuser, to be tried by an unbiased judge, and so on. They are highly reasonable rights that safeguard fair, uncorrupted legal procedures. In addition to upholding rights, the fourteenth amendment also contains an equal protections clause which establishes everyone’s right to due process regardless of race, socioeconomic status, or any other perceived difference that has historically been used to subordinate a specific group of

The due process clause allowed the Court to interpret the Fourteenth amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. This clause prohibits the government from depriving individuals of life, liberty, and/or property. Because this clause grants American citizens these liberties and forms of protection, the court decided the state and local governments must abide by them.

Animus or a “bare desire to harm” is a prevalent ground for applying rational basis with bite scrutiny. The court is also likely to use rational basis with bite when analyzing “laws that classify on the basis of an immutable characteristic or burden a significant right.” Classifications based on immutable characteristics – those that an individual cannot control – threaten principles of fairness integral to Equal Protection doctrine. In closely related Due Process doctrine, a law that burdens a significant right – i.e., burdens a

states may not deny any person “life, liberty or property without due process of law”, and The

Blackmun argued that the right to privacy, as defined in the Griswold v. Connecticut decision in 1965, included “the abortion decision.” In the ninth amendment, Blackmun argued, was “broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.” However, despite this argument of a woman’s right to end her pregnancy being cover under the “right to privacy” as established in Griswold,

My favorite case we went over in constitutional law this year is Lochner v. New York because of the display of power by the justices joined in the majority and the fervent dissent countering their reasoning. I have described Lochner above in the context of the Commerce clause above but my focus for this question is the case in context of the Substantive due process section of the class. The substantive due process clause deals with the law itself and not the process, substantive rights are protected under the Due Process Clause. This clause has come to encompass more and more rights, such as abortion, the right to die, and many other. “No state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law” (U.S. Const.

In this famous quote, Justice Stevens accurately describes the Constitution as “a mysterious document.” Just a few pages of parchment long, the United States Constitution dictates the function and operation of a vast system of governance, and is filled with phrases and clauses that can be interpreted and manipulated countless ways. However, the idea that “the Constitution is so vague that no one really knows what it permits and what is prohibits” is an even more accurate description of the chief problem of the document. This reformulation of Justice Stevens’ quote accurately portrays the core dilemma of Constitutional decision making. While judicial opinions are largely based off of the personal opinions of the justices, this drawback is an inevitable part of the Court’s role.

“Roses are red, violets are blue, and at times, I like you.” This is a small, simple phrase at first glance. Based on an individual’s character, however, they may take it a different way. As the audience changes, so does the meaning. When it comes to interpreting the Constitution, the same principle remains. It is extremely difficult to interpret the U.S. Constitution, because of its complexity and fragility. Also, the fact is when time changes, people change. In other words, different generations have different interpretations of what the Constitution says that they can do. Which leads to textualism, causing the judges of the Supreme Court to decide whether they can make new laws, even though their true vocation is to interpret the laws. Textualism trials test everything. Since the Constitution was written in 1788, they figure that the Constitution doesn’t have the same meaning as it did back then. On the other hand, there are people who believe that the current laws of the Constitution should be interpreted the same way as the original. An example of textualism would be the Supreme Court Antonin Scalia, and the original Supreme Court Justice Stephen Boyer. So in this paper, I am comparing and contrast these judges’ arguments of textualism, to decipher which one is correct.

There is another portion of the due process in the 14th Amendment which regulates the actions of the state. This clause is put into place so that a person’s right to life, liberty, and property, will not be deprived. Due process is procedural in nature and provides safeguards making sure the and has the right to be tried by a jury, have access to a lawyer and the ability to cross-examine a witness.The creators of the Constitution wanted to make sure that limited government authority will be the glue that holds the due process clause constitution together for the people of this country. The substantive law principles with particular power for the government are in the 1st, 2nd, and 8th

Under due process, the fifth and fourteenth Amendments are ensuring that every individual is afforded the opportunity that ensures that a citizen has the ability to have their procedural rights intact. According to Williams (2010, p.415), due process is the most fundamental right afforded to a person in the United States. Without it, citizens could be left at the mercy of unfair courts and vague laws.

The courts weigh in any time there is a dispute regarding civil rights or liberties; for example, the civil liberties court case, Byrd v. United States, deals with the Third Amendment, which is in the Bill of Rights. 2 This court case raises the question about whether a driver should expect privacy in a rental car that he/she has permission to drive, but is not an authorized driver on the rental agreement (“Byrd v. United States” 1). The court ruled that a person who has permission to drive a rental