14th Amendment Due Process Clause

14th Amendment Due Process Clause

It certainly is remarkable that the United States Constitution refers to “due process” twice. Therefore, the 5th Amendment’s allusions to “due process” state that nobody can be “deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." The ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868 only corroborated the validity of the 5th Amendment “due process” command, and made it acknowledged as the Due Process Clause which role has always been to characterize, with no exception, all states’ legal accountability which means that no matter what level of American government one cooperates with, all institutions are required to keep their actions within the law, and ensure an impartial conduct of various procedures

The 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause explicitly opposes to encourage any form of racial discrimination as the Bill of Rights does not possess equal protection clause. Therefore, in a case revolving around segregation in the area of Washington, D.C. that come under federal law, it has been determined that the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause function against the federal government and the states respectively.

The Due Process Clause is strongly connected with apprehension of fair procedures. Moreover, it follows the Magna Carta of Great Britain which resolutions were applied to ensure the noblemen that the king would make his decisions in accordance with procedures of law. Then the 17th century American colonies put an emphasis on preserving legal order. That being said, the government has always been under pressure to regard given law, and the law has been perceived as a manifestation of accurately functioning legal

Accordingly, a student was permitted to attend classes if his condition allowed him to do so, but also the aggrieved person had a power to accuse his teacher of an assault.

In 1970, Goldberg v. Kelly case proved that hearings regarding property rights could not be a subject of postponement if the irrevocable action was the consequence of the government’s decision . In this particular case the issue was whether recipients of Aid to Families with Dependent Children program should have been provided with a hearing before deciding on their admission. In accordance with the Due Process Clause they indeed did have a right to require this action, hence, acting without prior hearing was perceived as refusing them due process of law. In other cases repercussions could be much more severe, and result in sending someone to jail due to damaging actions that did not conduct

“due process”.

Moreover, it is crucial to obtain the knowledge of what procedures are