Constitutional Law. Procedural Due Process. Pennsylvania Supreme Court Holds Sentence-Enhancement Provisions of "Megan's Law" Unconstitutional. Commonwealth v. Williams, 733 A.2d 593 (Pa. 1999), Cert. Denied, 120 S. Ct. 792 (2000)

2000 ◽  
Vol 113 (8) ◽  
pp. 2140 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Megan's Law ◽  
Procedural Due Process

scholarly journals The Problem with Forgiving (But Not Entirely Forgetting) the Crimes of Our Nation’s Youth: Exploring the Third Circuit’s Unconstitutional Use of Nonjury Juvenile Adjudication in Armed Career Criminal Sentencing

2005 ◽  
Vol 66 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen F. Donahue
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Due Process ◽  
The United States ◽  
Past Century ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Social Compact ◽  
Procedural Due Process ◽  
Due Process Of Law ◽  
Lower Courts ◽  
The Individual

For better or for worse, our Constitution ensures that the basic rights of fair procedure are guaranteed to all American citizens, including those accused of crime, no matter how much society may disapprove of their actions. The United States Supreme Court has expressly provided that “[d]ue process of law is the primary and indispensable foundation of individual freedom” and effectively serves as the “basic and essential term in the social compact which defines the rights of the individual and delimits the powers which the state may exercise.” Recognizing that the failure to observe fundamental procedural due process guarantees has historically resulted in substantial unfairness to criminal defendants, the Court has worked to establish heightened procedural safeguards in criminal proceedings over the latter half of the past century.6 In this sense, the Court has openly embraced the belief that “the progression of history, and especially the deepening realization of the substance and procedures that justice and the demands of human dignity require” has called for courts to “invest the command of ‘due process of law’ with increasingly greater substance.” Consequently, the Supreme Court has set a clear example that lower courts must move forward “with advancing the conception of human rights in according procedural as well as substantive rights to individuals accused of conflict with the criminal laws.”

A Class by Herself: Muller v. Oregon (1908)

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nancy Woloch
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Turning Point ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Fourteenth Amendment ◽  
Labor Standards ◽  
Sexual Equality ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
Employment Of Women

This chapter assesses Muller v. Oregon (1908), its significance, and the law it upheld: Oregon's ten-hour law of 1903. Convicted of violating Oregon's law of 1903 that barred the employment of women in factories and laundries for more than ten hours a day, Curt Muller—the owner of a Portland laundry—challenged the constitutionality of the law, which he claimed violated his right of freedom to contract under the due process of the Fourteenth Amendment. On February 24, 1908, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the Oregon law. This decision marked a momentous triumph for progressive reformers and a turning point in the movement for protective laws. At the same time, by declaring woman “in a class by herself,” the Supreme Court embedded in constitutional law an axiom of female difference. The Muller decision thus pushed public policy forward toward modern labor standards and simultaneously distanced it from sexual equality.

Constitutional Law. Procedural Due Process. Notice and Hearing

1934 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 643
Author(s):  
Misha Rubin
Keyword(s):  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Procedural Due Process

Constitutional Law: Procedural Due Process Denied by Michigan's "One-Man Grand Jury"

1948 ◽  
Vol 46 (7) ◽  
pp. 979
Author(s):  
Robert J. Nordstrom
Keyword(s):  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Grand Jury ◽  
Procedural Due Process

Part VII Rights—Substance and Content, Ch.43 Due Process

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chandrachud Abhinav
Keyword(s):  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Pure Form ◽  
Indian Constitution ◽  
Constituent Assembly ◽  
Procedural Due Process ◽  
Due Process Of Law ◽  
Substantive Due Process

This chapter examines the guarantee of ‘due process of law’ in the Indian Constitution. After providing an account of Constituent Assembly Debates and the historical intent behind this guarantee, the Chapter explores how substantive due process came to become a part of Indian constitutional law. Through a reading of important cases, it demonstrates the shift from substantive due process to procedural due process before turning to a third kind of due process presently seen in Indian constitutional law that is distinct from these two standard forms. It examines this third form of ‘pure form’ due process, as well as provides some reflections upon the concepts of arbitrariness and reasonableness and their relationship with this guarantee.

Recent Legal Developments

2012 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 281-294
Author(s):  
James E. Robertson
Keyword(s):  
Gender Identity ◽  
Medical Care ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Gender Identity Disorder ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Courts Of Appeals ◽  
Annual Survey ◽  
Procedural Due Process ◽  
Religious Dress ◽  
The U.S

This annual survey examines important prisoners' rights cases decided by the U.S. Courts of Appeals during 2011. These cases addressed constitutional questions about inmate-on-inmate violence, lockdowns, delayed medical care, custodial suicide, gender identity disorder, excessive staff force, unsolicited mail, religious dress and diets, impermissible staff retaliation, cross-gender searches, and procedural due process. In addressing these constitutional questions, the U.S. Courts of Appeal created new law and/or applied clearly established law. Because the U.S. Supreme Court will only rarely grant certiorari to appellants, the U.S. Courts of Appeals remain the de facto courts of last resort for all but a few prisoners who challenge the constitutionality of the manner of their confinement.

America's Lone Star Constitution

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucas A. Powe Jr.
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Capital Punishment ◽  
School Finance ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Civil Liberty ◽  
Voting Rights ◽  
The Rich ◽  
The Relationship

Texas has created more constitutional law than any other state. In any classroom nationwide, any basic constitutional law course can be taught using nothing but Texas cases. That, however, understates the history and politics behind the cases. Beyond representing all doctrinal areas of constitutional law, Texas cases deal with the major issues of the nation. This book charts the rich and pervasive development of Texas-inspired constitutional law. From voting rights to railroad regulations, school finance to capital punishment, poverty to civil liberty, this book provides a window into the relationship between constitutional litigation and ordinary politics at the Texas Supreme Court, illuminating how all of the fiercest national divides over what the Constitution means took shape in Texas.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document