I have a question about the claim that "due process" historically included substantive content. I'm sorry that I'm jumping in late, having missed the beginning of the thread; and that may account for my question.
My question is whether the claim is that (1) in the nineteenth-century, let's say by the 1840s, due process had acquired some substantive content, or (2) that this was true even in 1790 when the 5th amendment due process clause was adopted. I know there are a couple or articles, one by Riggs and one by James Ely, making the latter claim. What I'm asking is whether the current thread indicates their claim is becoming conventional wisdom. Stephen Siegel DePaul University College of Law
