This Article begins in Part I with a doctrinal evaluation of the status of Washington v. Glucksberg ten years after that decision was handed down. Discussion begins with consideration of the Roberts Court’s recent decision in Gonzales v. Carhart and then turns to the subject of Justice Kennedy’s views in particular on substantive due process. In Part II, the Article goes on to consider whether the Glucksberg test for substantive due process decision making is correct in light of the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Article concludes in Parts II and III that Glucksberg is right to confine substantive due process rights recognition to recognition only of those rights that are deeply rooted in history and tradition.
June 2008 Vol. 106 No. 8 THE REVIEW
Substantive Due Process after Gonzales v. Carhart
//
VIEW PDF
PAST ISSUES
of The Review
The Online Companion
CURRENT FEATURES
RESPONSES
& Other Current Events
How the Gun-Free School Zones Act Saved the Individual Mandate
For all the drama surrounding the Commerce Clause challenge to the individual mandate provision...Citing Orin Kerr from MLR Volume 102, the Court addresses the controversy over GPS trackers and the Fourth Amendment
The Supreme Court's opinion in United States v. Jones, on GPS trackers and the Fourth Amendment, cited...Inside Agency Preemption
A subtle shift has taken place in the mechanics of preemption, the doctrine that determines when federal...Criminal Sanctions in the Defense of the Innocent
Under the formal rules of criminal procedure, fact finders are required to apply a uniform standard...On Strict Liability Crimes: Preserving a Moral Framework for Criminal Intent in an Intent-Free Moral World
The law has long recognized a presumption against criminal strict liability. This Note situates that...
MAILING LIST
Sign Up to Join Our Mailing List