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
Rethinking Reporter's Privilege
Forty years ago, in Branzburg v. Hayes, the Supreme Court made its first and only inquiry into...Standing's Expected Value
This Article argues in favor of standing based on expected value of harm. Standing doctrine has been...Counsel's Control over the Presentation of Mitigating Evidence During Capital Sentencing
The Sixth Amendment gives a defendant the right to control his defense and the right to a lawyer's...Law-Enforcement Officers and Self-Help Repossession: A State-Action Approach
Repossession of secured collateral is a fundamental component of the consumer credit industry. The...Doing Affirmative Action
Sometime this year the Supreme Court will announce its holding in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, a...
MAILING LIST
Sign Up to Join Our Mailing List