[Bryan]

what exactly constitutes a due process of law. we aren't to be denied life, liberty or property without due process of law. so what is due process?

[MisterAgreeable]

I don't believe the term "due process of law" was intended to mean any specific policy or procedure - they simply meant that whatever methods were proscribed by law must always be abided. "Due process" itself doesn't mean that you have to have a speedy and public trial - that protection comes from the sixth amendment - but your guarantee of due process means that you will never have your life placed in jeapordy without a criminal trial, which must be speedy and public. It means the courts can't decide to disregard some legal requirement or protection, even if there appears to be a good reason to do so. That's why cases can be dismissed because of trivial procedural errors on the part of the investigators or the prosecution (or the judge). Even if it was an innocent mistake, any deviation from the letter of the law is no longer following due process.

If you're asking about all the various rules and principles which are said to be protected by your right to due process, well, there are hundreds of court cases detailing those. I'm sure you know the major ones, but I doubt there are many people without law degrees who know all the minutia.

[Bryan]

well part of my reason for asking this was the recent sodomy decision. is a due process of law restricted to the courts? Does an act of Congress count as a due process of law?

[Luke]

Originally Posted by Bryan

what exactly constitutes a due process of law. we aren't to be denied life, liberty or property without due process of law. so what is due process?

An act of Congress is not due process of law because Congress isn't given any judicial power.

Grace & Peace
Luke

[Luke]

In most states you can be denied property without due process of law...it's called running out of money

The phrase should be "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"

Grace & Peace
Luke

[JerryLove]

In most states you can be denied property without due process of law...it's called running out of money

To, for example, forclose on your property, requires due process.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Bryan

well part of my reason for asking this was the recent sodomy decision. is a due process of law restricted to the courts? Does an act of Congress count as a due process of law?

Luke's right in that it doesn't. But if I could comment on that a second: The reason why the Supreme Court decision to allow sodomy was so ridiculous and wrong (even just according to The Constitution--not The Bible) is because of the fact that the Supreme Court is supposed to be looking at various issues and applying the Constitution to them--interpreting The Constitution. They obviously didn't do this at all, because we can see that a hundred years before and two hundred years after it was ratified there were sodomy laws. The founding fathers obviously did not mean to legalize such acts, and that's what the Supreme Court is supposed to be determining--what the writers of The Constitution meant.

But as it stands, the Supreme Court decision is just another product of public opinion, and therefore utterly worthless.

[JerryLove]

well part of my reason for asking this was the recent sodomy decision. is a due process of law restricted to the courts? Does an act of Congress count as a due process of law?

The supreme court, in looking at several specific anti-sodomy laws, correctly asserted that they were clearly created to impose uneven sanction against a group of people (homosexuals), and that this violated the various equality ammendments of the constitution.

And no, an act of congress is not sufficient to thorw out the constitution.

They obviously didn't do this at all, because we can see that a hundred years before and two hundred years after it was ratified there were sodomy laws.

This doesn't appear to actually be an argument... just an appeal. Further, the ammendments violated were relatively recent. The "original" constitution does not protect from such laws (it also doesn't protect free speech or disallow slavery), but the current one does.

The founding fathers obviously did not mean to legalize such acts, and that's what the Supreme Court is supposed to be determining--what the writers of The Constitution meant.

You do realize that the constitution has been ammended as recently as the past 10 years? The court is suppsoed to interprete the constitution, not only the 200 year-old parts.

But as it stands, the Supreme Court decision is just another product of public opinion, and therefore utterly worthless.

You mean like this whole "democracy" thing?