It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The Constitution does not mention this right by name. Instead, the general principle was simply taken from English common law. It has since been backed up firmly in numerous cases, by many accounts starting with Coffin vs. the United States in 1895.
That being said, the Fifth Amendment and the 14th Amendment both speak to the "due process" that is intended to be carried out. It is a Constitutional right to be allowed this due process, and it is understood that your right to be presumed innocent is a "fundamental element" of this process. In that sense, it is a Constitutional right, even if it is not directly addressed.
a person who has a history of sexual battery
You cannot justify that without abandoning good sense and morality, no matter what documents you reference, or what laws you cite.
If you want a person on the supreme court to be the sort of malignant scum who have EVER been capable of what has been suggested, and are not prepared to make damned sure they are NOT that kind of scum
I dont think that the court of public opinion is covered by the constitution.
Your statements mean that you would prefer potentially appointing a person who has a history of sexual battery, over making sure that a person appointed to that position has never committed any such thing IN FACT.
You cannot justify that without abandoning good sense and morality, no matter what documents you reference, or what laws you cite. If you want a person on the supreme court to be the sort of malignant scum who have EVER been capable of what has been suggested, and are not prepared to make damned sure they are NOT that kind of scum, then I have news for you:
You are part of the problem, you will never be part of its solution, and nor will the people you support.
No where did I say that Kavanaugh is or has been proven to be a sexual predator.
If you want a person on the supreme court to be the sort of malignant scum who have EVER been capable of what has been suggested
originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: neo96
There is no judge Judy and executioner.
This is not a trial.
originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: DrChandra
Not on trial
No right to due process
Someone else who don't understand
Non-Judicial Proceedings.— A court proceeding is not a requisite of due process. Administrative and executive proceedings are not judicial, yet they may satisfy the Due Process Clause. Moreover, the Due Process Clause does not require de novo judicial review of the factual conclusions of state regulatory agencies, and may not require judicial review at all. Nor does the Fourteenth Amendment prohibit a state from conferring judicial functions upon non-judicial bodies, or from delegating powers to a court that are legislative in nature. Further, it is up to a state to determine to what extent its legislative, executive, and judicial powers should be kept distinct and separate.
The Procedure That Is Due Process
The Interests Protected: “Life, Liberty and Property”.— The language of the Fourteenth Amendment requires the provision of due process when an interest in one’s “life, liberty or property” is threatened.
The Liberty Interest.— With respect to liberty interests, the Court has followed a similarly meandering path. Although the traditional concept of liberty was freedom from physical restraint, the Court has expanded the concept to include various other protected interests, some statutorily created and some not. ...
The Court also appeared to have expanded the notion of “liberty” to include the right to be free of official stigmatization, and found that such threatened stigmatization could in and of itself require due process. Thus, in Wisconsin v. Constantineau, the Court invalidated a statutory scheme in which persons could be labeled “excessive drinkers,” without any opportunity for a hearing and rebuttal, and could then be barred from places where alcohol was served. The Court, without discussing the source of the entitlement, noted that the governmental action impugned the individual’s reputation, honor, and integrity.
But, in Paul v. Davis, the Court appeared to retreat from recognizing damage to reputation alone, holding instead that the liberty interest extended only to those situations where loss of one’s reputation also resulted in loss of a statutory entitlement. In Davis, the police had included plaintiff’s photograph and name on a list of “active shoplifters” circulated to merchants without an opportunity for notice or hearing. But the Court held that “Kentucky law does not extend to respondent any legal guarantee of present enjoyment of reputation which has been altered as a result of petitioners’ actions. Rather, his interest in reputation is simply one of a number which the State may protect against injury by virtue of its tort law, providing a forum for vindication of those interest by means of damage actions.”841 Thus, unless the government’s official defamation has a specific negative effect on an entitlement, such as the denial to “excessive drinkers” of the right to obtain alcohol that occurred in Constantineau, there is no protected liberty interest that would require due process.
Burden of Proof and Presumptions.— It is clearly within the domain of the legislative branch of government to establish presumptions and rules respecting burden of proof in litigation. Nonetheless, the Due Process Clause does prevent the deprivation of liberty or property upon application of a standard of proof too lax to make reasonable assurance of accurate factfinding. Thus, “[t]he function of a standard of proof, as that concept is embodied in the Due Process Clause and in the realm of factfinding, is to ‘instruct the factfinder concerning the degree of confidence our society thinks he should have in the correctness of factual conclusions for a particular type of adjudication.’”
NO, A TRIAL OR JUDICIAL PROCEEDING IS NOT A PREREQUISITE
FOR THE APPLICATION OF DUE PROCESS