As I’m not familiar with the Florida constitution I didn’t touch that and only addressed the US Constitution, on which I think you’re wrong in the way you’ve framed your argument, though again not on how I feel the decision should have come down.
You may well be right on the Florida constitution, but that doesn’t change the fact that the Florida courts disagreed and that constitutes due process. The fact that the Florida constitution doesn’t use the phrase “due process” in this clause may be an argument, but the courts didn’t find that. It would be interesting to find out if any of the lawyers arguing the case raised that argument.
Sure you are. I posted the entire relevent portion. You need to get over the idea that only lawyers are allowed to interpret the plain words of our foundational legal documents.
Such an attitude is fit for slaves, not for free men and sovereign citizens.
You mean this?
"No person shall be...deprived of life...without due process of law..."
And this?
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Please, name the capital crime she was charged with, tried upon, and convicted of. Then I'll accept that she received "due process."
Document 13
Alexander Hamilton, Remarks on an Act for Regulating Elections, New York Assembly
6 Feb. 1787Papers 4:35
We had in a former debate, travelled largely over the ground of the constitution, as applied to legislative disqualifications; He would not repeat what he had said, but he hoped to be indulged by the house in explaining a sentence in the constitution, which seems not well understood by some gentlemen. In one article of it, it is said no man shall be disfranchised or deprived of any right he enjoys under the constitution, but by the law of the land, or the judgment of his peers. Some gentlemen hold that the law of the land will include an act of the legislature. But Lord Coke, that great luminary of the law, in his comment upon a similar clause, in Magna Charta, interprets the law of the land to mean presentment and indictment, and process of outlawry, as contradistinguished from trial by jury. But if there were any doubt upon the constitution, the bill of rights enacted in this very session removes it. It is there declared that, no man shall be disfranchised or deprived of any right, but by due process of law, or the judgment of his peers. The words “due process” have a precise technical import, and are only applicable to the process and proceedings of the courts of justice; they can never be referred to an act of legislature.
The Founders’ Constitution
Volume 5, Amendment V, Document 13
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendV_due_processs13.html
The University of Chicago Press
The Papers of Alexander Hamilton. Edited by Harold C. Syrett et al. 26 vols. New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1961—79. See also: Federalist