The Due Process Clause Summary

Appellant Brady was found guilty of first degree murder by the Maryland Court system. During his trial hearing Brady admitted to participating in the organization and forethought of the crime with a partner, although plead that he himself did not commit the crime. After disclosing his involvement, Brady’s lawyer admitted to his guilt but asked for a lesser penalty since Brady didn’t commit the murder. Before trial Brady’s council asked for all relevant information to the trial and were given most, but not all of it. The withholding of evidence was a violation of due process laws in which a new trial was requested. A new trial was granted but only for sentencing and not a retrial of fact.

In the case of Barron v. Baltimore in 1833, the Supreme Court ruled that the Bill of Rights are just restrictions on the federal government alone. To prevent the states from limiting rights granted to the citizens in the Constitution, the 14th Amendment was passed. The 14th Amendment was adopted on July 9, 1868 as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. The amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves after the American Civil War. It was severely contested, especially by the states of the Confederacy that were defeated and were forced to ratify it in order to regain representation in Congress. The amendment’s first section includes many clauses, but one important one is the Equal Protection Clause. This clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people, including non-citizens, within its jurisdiction. The clause has also been the basis for many decisions rejecting irrational or unnecessary discrimination against people belonging to various groups. Eventually, selective incorporation occurred in which the civil liberties granted in the Bill of Rights were applied to the states on a case-by-case basis through the 14th Amendment. Now, the same liberties that were granted to the federal government, were now enacted with the state governments. Same-sex marriage is one of these fundamental rights, rights that require a high degree of protection from government

Is it okay to not believe in gay marriage, yet at the same time support the constitutional rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness for homosexual couples? Even though most churches' beliefs conflict with marrying same-sex partners, government should not deny a person's right to their happiness; because any person, no matter race, color, sex, religion or sexual orientation, should be allowed to exercise their constitutional rights as Americans to pursue their happiness; and married gay couples should be able to have a spectrum of rights and benefits if their gay partnership is legalized.

The 14th Amendment provides that no government shall take away the individual right to life, liberty, and property, within its jurisdiction, without due process of law.

This judgment settled the question until the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868. It guaranteed the citizens of every state the right to EQUAL PROTECTION of the laws and the right to due process of law. Following RATIFICATION of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court began making individual freedoms enumerated in the Bill of Rights applicable to the states via the doctrine of incorporation. Under this doctrine the Court explained through a series of cases that no state may deny any citizen a fundamental liberty without violating the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. The Court has ruled that these fundamental liberties include every liberty set forth in the Bill of Rights, except the Second Amendment's right to bear arms, the Third Amendment's right against quartering soldiers, the Seventh Amendment's

Individuals in America possess many freedoms that individuals in foreign countries like China, South Korea, and Afghanistan do not have access to. The liberties granted by the First Amendment gives people the right to express their personal and religious beliefs without interference from the Government. The protection given to the people by the First Amendment stops the Government from becoming too strong or monarchical, a fear that comes from the oppressive rule of Great Britain that the Founding Fathers desperately wanted to avoid happening again. The preservation of individuals expressing their political, religious, or personal beliefs is an important right of American citizens that should not be overlooked. A recent illustration of the First Amendment in use for individuals can be seen with the Supreme Court case Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015. The Court ruling directly impacts individuals by giving people the legal right to have same-sex marriages.

Issue: The legal issue for this case is that Molly is being illegally detained and is being denied her 5th amendment rights of due process. This denial is because the United States government believes she is a member of ISIS and is being considered an enemy of the United States because she was captured during a battle with the United States Special Forces.

The intent of the fourteenth Amendment was to establish and protect equal rights for all, but most importantly-the former slaves. The fourteenth Amendment granted a unique form of citizenship to the recently freed slaves and their future families, while also containing the framework of rights and protections that would be a part of this new type of citizenship. The fourteenth Amendment redefined the entire idea of citizenship. Before the reform of the 14th Amendment, citizenship under the constitution was in reference to all free white males or person of the original thirteen states and any other states admitted to the union. This parameter granted protection of life, liberty, property and civil rights and immunities from the government. However, especially in the southern democratic colonies, slaves were seen as property, Inferior and non- citizens. They had no rights, neither was there any protection for them under the law. The ratification of the 14th Amendments changed such ideology. To compensate for all the injustices the slaves suffered, this amendment was there to offer some level of hope. The clauses under the Amendment provided some framework of protection for everyone. The equal protection clause requires that states under their jurisdiction; equal protection to everyone, while rejecting any discrimination to anyone. The Due Process Clause prevents local and state

The AFSA requires that states conduct criminal background checks for all perspective foster parents and deny approval to anyone who has ever been convicted of a felony, child abuse or neglect, spousal abuse, a crime against children (including child pornography), or a violent crime including rape, sexual assault, or homicide. In addition, states must deny approval to anyone with a felony conviction for physical assault, battery, or a drug-related offense, if the felony occurred within the past five years. States may opt out of the ASFA criminal record check provisions either through a letter from the state’s governor to the Secretary of HHS, or through legislation enacted by the state legislature.

To begin the comprehension of Amendment IV, one must go back to the original purposes that the law was created for. In Great Britain, during the late 1700s, the king’s assistants were allowed to search without any evidence or probable cause because they were granted general warrants. Over in America, where Britain had set up colonies, the king could use general warrants to seize items that had not been paid for in taxes. One of the reasons the Fourth Amendment has changed so much since the early years of America is that law enforcement has evolved over the past two centuries. “Policing in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries was a responsibility of the citizenry… other than that, there was only a loose collection of sheriffs and constables,

While we must have due processes in place, we must make these processes smoother and not be so rigorous. Also for immigrants already taking part in our system not only should they be afforded equal rights to natural citizens but should be afforded citizenship as well. Most immigrants who do try an enter the country the correct way know it may take years before citizenship is granted to you and in some cases I’ve heard it taking up to 10 years. Although the due process is a necessary evil, most immigrants are coming from third world countries or conditions so extreme they are forced to flee to America. So why have we yet to allocate the resources to government branches to give them the staffing needed and resources to process these applications in a timely matter? For one

In our government today we have due process of law. Due process of law simply means that we have protection against a chance deprivation of life, liberty or property. Within the due process law, if you are to be accused of something it has to be under fair and reasonable circumstances. If we are ever to be arrested of something, under due process it commands that we are taken to court and showed a cause. It is very important that we have due process in the law for the people of the United States. Law enforcement always requires the balancing of two competing social concerns: on one hand, is the government's interest in protecting its citizens and prosecuting criminal conduct; on the other hand, is the right of

The rights in this category are also sometimes referred to collectively as liberty interests. This list includes … The right to marry, and the right to procreate.” (National Paralegal College, 2007) Since procreation is one of the first fundamental rights the government should have no real power to prevent someone from having children, not even by mandating a law to not do so. To dissect the issue of banning the right to procreation; we must first understand that although the government felt that because they mandated the Aliens to remain in one state (Franklin) almost as prisoners it does not grant them the right to take away a citizens fundamental right. When looking at the strict scrutiny analysis that the Courts uses for the substantive due process there are a number of questions which have to determine if the laws which are in question, deprive citizens of their “free

Due process having the rights for what I am convicted with a crime. Due process rights put restrictions on the government in order to protect your rights. The idea of Due process came from Magna Carta. Basically, the Magna Carta gives us the idea that the government cannot put you in jail, or take away your rights or belongings, except the government cannot do any of the things unless it is done in legal manner. Essentially, Due process protects suspects who are in criminal justice system and due process rights includes Habeas Corpus. It means that suspects of a crime, must be told of the charges against them, suspects are protected against unreasonable search and seizure. As well as, you have to be informed of your rights to remain silent, rights to an attorney, and the rights to defend themselves in court. Suspects also protected against double jeopardy. Primarily, it means if you are found innocent of a crime then you cannot be charge for the same crime again. In youth criminal justice act, if an offender was 14 years of age she or he can be tried as an adult. Although, offenders that ages under 12 cannot be convicted or charge of any criminal offences. Minors typically face less serious penalties if they are convicted, and they were treated differently in the lawful system than adults. Supreme court was ruled that mostly are not guaranteed for minors and sometimes they are not approved a trial by the jury. notwithstanding that, in constitution congress gives the

Typically, the term “Due Process” means fair procedure. Its Clause can be found in the Fourteenth Amendment where it states that nobody shall be “denied liberty, property or life without due process of Law.” The Supreme Court also used this section of the Fourteenth Amendment to rule out certain practices categorically. For example, the Court has ruled that the Due Process Clause covers rights that were not discretely enumerated in the Constitution, such as rights to privacy concerning sexual relations. In the Roe v. Wade (1973), the Supreme Court added that the right to privacy comprised women's decision to abortion. The Court also used the Due Process Clause as an extension of the Bill of Rights to the states later through a practice known as “incorporation.”