Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: edsheppa
...the author of that article I linked definitely thinks that substantive due process is based on an interpretation of the due process clause of the 14th.

And I'm not disputing that point (at least not here, anyway). It's true that it looks like I was disputing it earlier, but that's because I had misunderstood what you were getting at (which I agree was my fault). What I'm saying (now that I do understand your point) is that substantive due process doesn't seem to cover the rest of the bill of rights. It doesn't, in and of itself, mean that the state can't do what the first amendment prohibits the federal government from doing.

21 posted on 05/06/2002 8:16:04 AM PDT by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]


To: inquest
I'd have to be shown that. From what I've read it appears the SC has extended first amendment prohibitions to the states. Do you have an example in which the SC has allowed state regulation of speech or religion in a way it has denied the federal gov't?
23 posted on 05/06/2002 9:31:22 AM PDT by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson