Do We Have to Codify a Substantive Due Process of Law Clause?

Author(s):  
Jongcheol Kim
1948 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 32-42
Author(s):  
Robert J. Harris

The disintegration of due process of law was somewhat advanced prior to October, 1937, as a result of judicial reversals of opinions on price-fixing and minimum wage legislation. As the process of transformation continued, it took four major forms. They were: (1) the withdrawal of substantive due process as a limitation on social legislation, taxation, rate-making, and regulatory action generally; (2) an expansion of substantive due process in cases involving freedom of expression, assembly, and religion, including rights of labor through the application of new concepts of freedom of speech; (3) the curtailment of procedural due process as a limit on administrative action except in cases involving the deportation of aliens; and (4) the use of procedural due process in such a way as to provide greater protection on the whole to persons accused of crime. This transformation has been accompanied by changed assumptions which accommodate governmental activity.Thus, on the assumption that so long as one is free to possess the fruits of agricultural production there is no denial of due process of law, the Court has sustained rigid restrictions on the marketing of agricultural products even when retroactively imposed and when the quotas were so applied as to include the wheat produced by a farmer for his domestic consumption. On a further assumption that since Congress has the power to decide the issue of the advantages and disadvantages of holding companies, the Court not only sustained the Public Utility Holding Company Act, but in so doing asserted that the judiciary could not question the propriety of Congress' decision.


Author(s):  
Chandrachud Abhinav

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.


2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 156
Author(s):  
Rizal Irvan Amin

<p><strong><em>Abstract</em></strong></p><p><em>The issue of regulation has indeed become a lively discourse in recent years. Laws and </em> <em>regulations, which in essence is a set of regulatory systems to provide an orderly legal order and society, often creates conflicts, both internal conflicts between regulations and external conflicts involving government agencies and the community. The study of legal science in the perspective of sociological jurisprudence is a scientific instrument that makes sense to analyze the phenomenon of legal problems that occur in indonesia, this is because the beginning and the end of a regulation is society. The results show that regulatory conflicts occur because in practice the formation of laws and regulations often ignores procedural due process of law and substantive due process of law, one of the main points is that the widest possible public participation is required in the regulatory formation process. As a result, several regulations that have been produced often cause conflicts due to a mismatch between the substance of the regulations and the conditions and needs of the community.</em></p><p><strong> </strong></p><p><strong>Abstrak</strong></p><p>Isu permasalahan regulasi menjadi diskursus yang sering mencuat beberapa tahun terakhir.  Peraturan perundang-undangan yang esensinya merupakan sekumpulan sistem aturan untuk menghadirkan tatanan hukum dan masyarakat yang tertib, justru realitanya sering kali memunculkan konflik, baik konflik internal antar peraturan maupun konflik eksternal yang melibatkan lembaga pemerintahan dan masyarakat. Kajian ilmu hukum dalam perspektif sosiologi hukum menjadi instrumen keilmuan yang masuk akal untuk membedah fenomena permasalahan peraturan perundang-undangan yang terjadi, hal ini dikarenakan hulu dan hilir suatu regulasi adalah masyarakat. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa konflik regulasi terjadi dikarenakan di dalam praktik pembentukan peraturan perundang-undangan masih sering kali mengabaikan <em>procedural due process of law </em>dan <em>substantive due process of law </em>yang salah satu poin utamanya adalah dibutuhkan partisipasi publik yang seluas-luasnya di dalam proses pembentukan peraturan. Alhasil beberapa regulasi yang dihasilkan kerap menimbulkan konflik dikarenkan ketidaksesuaian antara substansi peraturan dengan keadaan dan kebutuhan di masyarakat.</p>


Author(s):  
Scott Burris ◽  
Micah L. Berman ◽  
Matthew Penn, and ◽  
Tara Ramanathan Holiday

This chapter describes “due process,” a Constitutional restriction on governmental actions that impact individuals, in the context of public health. It outlines the doctrines of procedural and substantive due process, including the legal tests that courts apply to decide whether individuals’ due process rights have been violated. It uses examples from Supreme Court cases that have defined due process in the context of public health, including those that struggle to define the scope of reproductive rights. It also examines two cases where public health principles were raised as a justification for governmental action: one about involuntary sterilization and one about Ebola. The chapter concludes with a brief discussion of the “state action doctrine” that defines which public health actors may be challenged on due process grounds.


2021 ◽  
pp. 251660692199175
Author(s):  
Devansh Dubey ◽  
Payas Jain

The right to fair trial is inherent in the concept of due process of law, which now forms part of Article 21 of Indian Constitution after the Maneka Gandhi judgement. Pertinently attached with the same comes the responsibility of the criminal system to treat victims with increased awareness and sensitivity. However, the established convention shows that in planning and developing administration of criminal justice, proper attention is not given to the victims of crime in achieving goals of criminal justice; the major cause of it being that a victim is heard only as a witness not as a victim. A credible response to the said issue has emerged in the form of victim impact statement (VIS) in the modern legal system across the world. With that being said, the researchers through this article try to deduce the need for incorporating a VIS in India through the various jurisprudential understandings of what it means to be a victim, including the gap between the subjective experience of the sufferer and the interpretation of the same by others, and what restorative justice would mean to heal a victim. Establishing upon the same premise of victim status, the researchers try to suggest that the introduction of VIS, with the primary purpose of it being a therapeutic tool and not an instrument of changing the course of justice, will serve to make us reconsider our contours of a ‘victim’.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document