A I address the U.S. Government here for the Government has been highly a major proponent of hunam rights though a democratic process instead of projecting the image of a Bully and GGovernmental abuses. I further understand that the court is an institution that the Government sets up to settle disputes through a legal process. And, it is clear to me now that "the Judges are not the court" and the court can be disparaged by the actions of Judges yet the court maintains its austerity.
The local rules of the Northern District of Florida are devoid of SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS which I bitterly decry as it has been and is highly prejudicial against me the plaintiff in this case and as it forms the major basis for almost all the torts perpetrated in this case. I now call on the POWERS OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA through the excellence and Honorable tenure of our Historic President Barack Obama, the JUDICIAL and the LEGISLATIVE BRANCHES of the U.S. Government if necessary, to make due diligence to protect the Country for the nation through the Northern District of Florida has a gapping hole for intruders to invade. I count on the vast experience of the "Best Bunch In The World" for a quick and speedy remedy.
AUTHORITATIVE CITATION: In general, substantive due process prohibits the government from infringing on fundamental constitutional liberties. By contrast, procedural due process refers to the procedural limitations placed on the manner in which a law is administered, applied, or enforced. Thus, procedural due process prohibits the government from arbitrarily depriving individuals of legally protected interests without first giving them notice and the opportunity to be heard.
The Due Process Clause provides that no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." When courts face questions concerning procedural due process, the controlling word in this clause is process. Courts must determine how much process is due in a particular hearing to satisfy the fairness requirements of the Constitution. When courts face questions concerning substantive due process, the controlling issue is liberty. Courts must determine the nature and the scope of the liberty protected by the Constitution before affording litigants a particular freedom.
Substantive due process
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In United States constitutional law, substantive due process (SDP) is a principle which allows federal courts to protect certain fundamental rights from government interference under the authority of the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution,
which prohibit the federal and state governments, respectively, from
depriving any person of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."[1][2]
That is, substantive due process demarcates the line between, on the
one hand, acts by persons of a public or private nature that courts hold
are subject to public regulations or legislation, and on the other
hand, acts that courts place beyond the reach of governmental
interference. Whether the Fifth and/or Fourteenth Amendments were
intended to serve this function continues to be a matter of scholarly as
well as judicial discussion and dissent.[3]
SDP is to be distinguished from procedural due process (PDP). The distinction arises from the phrase "due process of law".[4] PDP aims to protect individuals from the coercive power of government by ensuring that adjudication processes under valid laws are fair and impartial (e.g., the right to sufficient notice, the right to an impartial arbiter, the right to give testimony and admit relevant evidence at hearings).[4] In contrast, SDP aims to protect individuals against majoritarian policy enactments that exceed the limits of governmental authority—that is, courts may find that a majority's enactment is not law, and cannot be enforced as such, regardless of how fair the processes of enactment and enforcement actually are.[4]
The term "substantive due process" was first used explicitly in 1930s legal casebooks as a categorical distinction of selected due process cases, and by 1950 had been mentioned twice in Supreme Court opinions.[5] The term "substantive due process" itself is commonly used in two ways: first, to identify a particular line of case law; and second, to signify a particular political attitude toward judicial review under the two Due Process Clauses.[6]
SDP is to be distinguished from procedural due process (PDP). The distinction arises from the phrase "due process of law".[4] PDP aims to protect individuals from the coercive power of government by ensuring that adjudication processes under valid laws are fair and impartial (e.g., the right to sufficient notice, the right to an impartial arbiter, the right to give testimony and admit relevant evidence at hearings).[4] In contrast, SDP aims to protect individuals against majoritarian policy enactments that exceed the limits of governmental authority—that is, courts may find that a majority's enactment is not law, and cannot be enforced as such, regardless of how fair the processes of enactment and enforcement actually are.[4]
The term "substantive due process" was first used explicitly in 1930s legal casebooks as a categorical distinction of selected due process cases, and by 1950 had been mentioned twice in Supreme Court opinions.[5] The term "substantive due process" itself is commonly used in two ways: first, to identify a particular line of case law; and second, to signify a particular political attitude toward judicial review under the two Due Process Clauses.[6]
