0
How does the due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment differ from the due process clause in the Fifth Amendment?
Wiki User
∙ 7y ago
Verified answer
both protect citizens in cases in which they could be deprived of life, liberty, or property
Wiki User
∙ 7y ago
cxllin21
ALICIA ZOLLER
the clause in the Fourteenth Amendment has been interpreted to mean that state government must provide some of the protections in the Bill of Rights
Adeeb Mozumder
Destiney Jenkins
the clause in the Fourteenth Amendment has been interpreted to mean that state governments must provide some of the protections in the Bill of Rights
Wiki User
∙ 13y agoThe Fifth Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, and originally applied only to the Federal government. The states weren't legally required to adhere to a system of due process, or provide any other form of constitutional protection, fair or consistent treatment to the accused in criminal action.
The Fourteenth Amendment explicitly extends protection of due process to actions initiated by the states without specifying how due process was to be applied. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment was revised and adapted for application to the states: ". . . nor shall any state . . ."
Section I of the Fourteenth Amendment also defines to whom the Amendment provides due process protection, with the intent of ensuring African-Americans (many, former slaves) were afforded the same legal rights as whites. ". . . deprive any person . . ."
The US Supreme Court has also used the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause to apply most of the Bill of Rights to the states.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment XIV, Section 1
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Edward Conner
Wiki User
∙ 13y agoThey offer identical protection, but the Fifth applies to the federal government and the Fourteenth applies to the states.
Wiki User
∙ 7y agothe clause in the fourteenth amendment has been interpreted to mean that state governments must provide some of the protections in the bill of rights
Jeremy Barberio
both protect citizens in cases in which they could be deprived of life, liberty, or property
Wiki User
∙ 6y agoThe clause in the Fifth Amendment was specifically written to restrict a new, powerful government.
Civil rights differ from civil liberties in that?
civil liberties typically focus on freedom and due process outlined in the Bill of Rights where civil rights concern the equal status and treatment of individuals.
Have the Supreme Court decisions regarding the Commerce Clause extended the power of the federal government beyond what the Framers originally intended?
Commerce ClauseArticle I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution is known as the Commerce Clause, and reads "The Congress shall have Power ...To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." The use of vehicles in interstate commerce has been determined by the Supreme Court to fall under this part of the Constitution in the case Gibbons v. Ogden (1824). The Chief Justice in the majority opinion ruled that navigation and travel fit under this rule.YesThe Supreme Court has abused the so-called "interstate commerce clause" to the point of meaninglessness. It seems that any and everything the federal government wants to have power over, the Supreme Court becomes a willingly partner in this usurpation by declaring, against all reason and common sense, that some action constitutes "interstate commerce". For example, there is a federal law requiring all toilets sold in the US to be limited to one gallon per flush. The opinion of some is that the INTENTION of the Constitution was to LIMIT the power of the federal government. This was accomplished by clearly enumerating the powers that the federal government DID have, with the assumption that everything else was off limits. Some thought that the notion that everything else was off limits was not clear enough, so they included in the Bill of Rights the Tenth Amendment, which made it clear.Yes, the federal government still needs the congress and the courts. The congress to make laws, and the courts to determine whether someone is in violation of them. But both of these institutions (and the president as well) must perform their duties WITHIN THE BOUNDS specified by the Constitution. One of those restrictions is plainly written in the Tenth Amendment. Any power not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution is reserved to the States or the People. And the power to regulate how many miles per gallon automobiles must get is NOT delegated to the federal government. Therefore, the federal government has NO power to do so. The power, if it exists at all, is reserved to the States.Of course, automobiles hadn't been invented yet in 1787 when the Constitution was written. This does not change the fact that the Constitution doesn't say anything about automobiles or gasoline. Like it or not, the federal government doesn't have this power. If the PEOPLE think that the government has a legitimate interest in regulating miles per gallon, then a Constitutional Amendment can be initiated to give the government power over this issue. If 2/3 of both houses of Congress, and 3/4 of the State legislatures agree, then the Amendment will become part of the Constitution. To date, no such amendment has been proposed.To many it seems clear that the purpose of the "interstate commerce clause" was to give the federal government the power to set standards for business transactions in cases where no one State government could be said to have authority. At the time, different States had different laws regarding commerce, and buyers and sellers in different States had a hard time determining which State's laws superceded the other's. Even the States themselves had huge disagreements over such issues. So, the framers of the Constitution gave the federal government the power to enact laws that would govern transactions that took place between people in different States. It was supposed that the laws created by the Federal government would be somewhere in between those of the States involved. The framers had no intention of allowing the federal government to make up commerce laws out of whole cloth! Futhermore, the purpose of the interstate commerce clause was to regulate the terms of the transaction, not the nature of the product itself, nor its price.I challenge anyone to come up with any transaction, or even any action, that the federal government cannot, under such liberal application of the interstate commerce clause, claim power over. The logic that resulted in the Federal Minimum Wage Law being deemed Constitutional is only slightly less ridiculous.NoThere are several approaches to Constitutional interpretation. Thus, any interpretation of the Commerce Clause will differ depending on which approach one uses. There is no criterion by which one can say one of these approaches is the correct one. Some are better than others, but there is necessary overlap among them all. The place to begin with any interpretation of the Commerce Clause (or any provision) is with the words of the clause. What does "commerce" mean? Essentially, one can define the term as the voluntary sale of goods and services, and related activity, intended for the marketplace. This commerce must be "among the several states." That would be between states or in one State that affects another State. One must also understand that the Constitution gives this power to the federal government, and in such a case, the government can exercise that power to its fullest extent. The political structure within which the Clause was placed, and the evolving nature of society and the economy must also be considered. In a national, integrated economy, nearly all commerce would seem to come within the Commerce Clause's ambit. How far the government can extend its Commerce Clause power is in reality a political question, since the Constitutional power is nearly plenary in the economic context. The Supreme Court's decisions are generally reflective of the above view of the Clause's purpose and reach, with some decisions at either end of a continuum of possible interpretations. Thus, the Supreme Court has not extended the government's power under the Commerce Clause beyond the Framer's intent.Note that the question assumes there is one intent of the Framers and that it can be known. Both are invalid assumptions.
How were the Albany and Birmingham campaigns alike and how did they differ?
killa
How did the reign of Ashoka differ from those of his father and grandfather?
It is the reincarnation
How does trying a case in a small claims court differ from trying a case in a court of record?
how dose trying a case in small claims court differ from trying a case in a court of record
How did the Supreme Court's interpretation of the equal protection clause differ in the Plessy Ferguson and Brown v Board of Education rulings?
in plessy, the supreme court ruled that the clause allowed racial segregation; in the brown, it ruled that clause did not allow segregation
How did supreme court’s interpretation of the equal protection clause differ in the plessy v. Ferguson and brown v. Board of education rulings?
in plessy, the supreme court ruled that the clause allowed racial segregation; in the brown, it ruled that clause did not allow segregation
How does the 14th amendment differ from the fifth amendment in regard to citizen's rights?
The 14th gave some rights to ex-slaves. The 5th gave rights to everybody except for slaves.
What are some adverb clause starters?
The beginnings of adverb clauses can differ a lot. However, you can spot an adverb clause by finding what the clause is modifying. If the clause in the sentence is modifying a verb, than it's an adverb clause. Also, adverb clauses will tell you: * When the action occurred * Where the action took place * To what extent the action was * How the action was done Make sure the clause is modifying a verb though, because often times it can be a prepositional phrase!
How does the process of fermentation differ from the process of respiration?
while respiration implies air, fermentation is an anaerobic (no oxygen) process.
How does the process of fermentation differ from the process of reparation?
I assume you meant respiration - in which case : fermentation does not require oxygen.
How do growth and development differ?
Growth is the process of becoming larger. Development is the process of becoming more complex.
How does endocytosis differ from te process shown i n the transparency?
penis
Process of inheritance in humans differ from that of plants?
yes, a huge lot!
How does a process-based organization differ from an organization that is functionally-based?
in uk
What is the process of biological change by which descendants come differ from their ancestors?
Evolution
How does implementation differ for product innovation and process innovation?
Implementation is the process of making the process come to life. The innovation is new ideas that come into existence.
