Substantive due process


''We will not rest until every citizen understands the law and 'all defenses and objections not entered are deemed waived' is tattooed across every person's forehead!''


Wikipedia - (DISCLAIMER: I NEVER trust Wikipedia for accuracy, however, it can be a wonderful time-saving gateway to Internet research and education, and it can also have a lot of extremely helpful links which can lead to reliable material. My guess would be that, depending on context, most judges would laugh at any pro se who tried to cite Wikipedia as a reference. I cite it here merely as one aid to the pro se educational process.)

Two or Three Myths About Substantive Due Process, by Timothy Sandefur at The Volokh Conspiracy, a wonderful legal blog by a group of legal professors which was founded by UCLA law professor, Eugene Volokh (God bless him!). See also Wikipedia's article on Volokh.

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000):
"treacherous field" of substantive due process. Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U. S. 494, 502 (1977) (opinion of Powell, J.).

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000):
It has become standard practice in our substantive due process jurisprudence to begin our analysis with an identification of the "fundamental" liberty interests implicated by the challenged state action. See, e.g., ante, at 6-8 (opinion of O'Connor, J.); Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702 (1997); Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992).

Under construction