________________________________
From: "Volokh, Eugene" <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2013 12:01 PM
Subject: RE: New approach
I agree that DeShaney says that failure to adequately enforce
the law isn’t a due process violation. But I don’t think that disposes of the
question whether a law stripping classes of people of protection against
murder, kidnapping, theft, etc. is a due process violation.
As to “the notion of ‘positive protection’ [being] a perversion
of the Constitution,” what do you think of the Contracts Clause? Say that a
state says “we will refuse to enforce contracts of type X.” That is a denial
of positive protection for contracts. Yet under the right circumstances it is
a violation of the Constitution.
Or say that a state says “it shall not be a crime or a tort for
anyone to go on privately owned beaches.” That is a denial of positive
protection for property. Yet it may well be a taking of property, cf. Kaiser
Aetna; Loretto Teleprompter, precisely because property rights presuppose
positive protection from the law (however imperfectly that law may be enforced
by the police).
Likewise, consider examples that I gave and that so far no-one
has said are constitutional (though perhaps you think they are)
[Clearly we aren't on the same page if you haven't seen my writings rejecting
their Constitutionality]
: “It shall not be a crime for squatters to kill anyone trying to nonlethally
evict them.” “It shall not be a crime for anyone to steal from diamond
merchants.” “It shall not be a crime for anyone to kill anyone who has been
accused of rape.” “It shall not be a crime for anyone to lock up indefinitely
anyone who has been accused of rape but found not guilty as a result of a
technicality.” All of them involve denial of positive protection, the
protection that all of us enjoy because killing us, kidnapping us, and stealing
from us is criminalized. But is it really the case that such legislative
stripping of the traditional protection offered to life, liberty, and property
isn’t a denial of life, liberty, and property without due process?
All these "it shall not be a crime . . ." examples appear to violate the due
process rights of individuals. I'm actually embarrassed that I have to suggest
that laws are for setting limits to behavior of individuals, not to encourage
anti-social behavior (despite examples you might suggest to the contrary --
e.g. your beach example is real).
While you seem to want to involve "positive protection" in your examples, I
think this concept is as half-baked as a Constitutional issue as the
"collective right" for the 2nd Amendment was. All these hypotheticals violate
due process and need no additional reasons to fail Constitutional muster.
Eugene
From:Phil Lee [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 8:40 AM
To: Volokh, Eugene; [email protected]
Subject: Re: New approach
But the USSC has held that the government has no duty to act in general, only
in limited cases such protecting witness or people in custody. So, your claim
"you can't say . . . " is wrong.
The notion of "positive protection" is a perversion of the Constitution and not
the basis for making your hypotheticals illegal acts for Congress. This
"positive protection" idea appears nowhere in the Constitution, but due process
and separation of powers are in it and your hypotheticals violate both by
creating laws to decide legal disputes and to reduce the people to a state of
nature wherein life and property are not protected. Also, denial of due
process is an act of government, denial of a right of an individual.
Individuals may obstruct justice or murder etc., but individuals do not deny
due process by the act of self-defense. And to suggest that such acts being
not criminalized is a denial of due process is wrong too since such acts are
investigated, unless you believe due process is delivered by trials only.
Phil
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [email protected]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [email protected]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
