I did some research on ante-bellum notions of due process and law of the
land some years ago, never published, but the upshot was consistent with
what Mark says. The standard modern view captured by Ely's remark about
substantive due process being like green pastel redness or whatever is
an
The processual dimension of the due process clause permits the prohibition of these rights (just not without the appropriate process) as much as their permission. I would think that a "libertarian revolution" would not be satisfied with a conception of liberty that can be easily denied merely by
Perhaps I'm missing your point in turn, but I'mhaving
troubleseeing the two clauses assharply distinguishable -- even
linguistically -- in terms of substance and procedure. There is nothing
inherently substantive about "privileges and immunities", which can be
procedural as well as
In a message dated 7/12/2003 11:12:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No doubt I'm missing something, but doesn't the PI argument still suffer from being limited to "citizens"?
I'm not sure how this is relevant to the point I hoped to make about resurrecting the privileges
If I understand the idea of "a libertarian revolution" correctly--I have not yet read Randy's article--it applies to emphasizing the liberty associated with the due process clause. Right? What about grounding the revolution in the privileges or immunities? Resurrecting the privileges or
