Due Process and the Supreme Court in the USA - Research Paper Example

?The Right of Due Process Guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United s Constitution Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Introduction 3 Background 4 What is Due Process? 5 Due Process and the Supreme Court 6 Conclusion 8 References 8 Introduction The United States Constitution is a unique and powerful document the created the system of government within the United States of America. It was created as America declared its independence from its parent nation of England as a way of creating its own direction, with language and concepts that were unfamiliar to the parent nation. It is the document on which the rights of the American citizens are based, and represents many important principles, and is the foundation upon which the freedom of the country is based and considered to be the founding document of the nation. One of the principles that is represented in the Constitution is the right to due process which is given in the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments. The Fourteenth Amendment expands on the Fifth applying it to a broader audience. Due process is related to how laws are applied and how they are enforced. For example, if an individual has committed a criminal act for which they need to be penalized, they cannot just be thrown in jail, there has to be the process that is under law. In this case the process involves using a warrant, a trial, and sentencing among other steps. Operating without this process is not only illegal in the example, but it is also unconstitutional. While due process is guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, the exact meaning of due process is not clearly established. The ambiguity has meant decisions within the Supreme Court as to the meaning of the phrase and whether it applied to the cases that were being heard at the time. These decisions have helped to shape the current interpretation of the law such as the right of defendants to have representation and for accused to be made aware of their rights before questioning. However, some recent Supreme Court decisions appear to go against the right of due process set forth in the constitution. Background The United States was founded by Europe, and as a consequence was governed by them. Because of the great distance and the disinterest of the British government in its colonists the rule that England exercised over the colonies was mild, at least initially. The desire for change came at the end of the war between the French settlers and the British colonists when the British government demanded taxes from the colonists as payment for the men that it had supplied. The desire to tax the colonists, without allowing them representation in the British courts was one of the reasons for the American Revolution. The revolution began in 1776 and the colonists declared their independence from their founding country, choosing instead to be ruled by law from within. The Constitution promised rights to all Americans regardless of class and rates and detailed the system of government for America, one that served the people rather than serving itself . The Constitution forbids any individual being deprived of “…life, liberty, or property, without due process of the law...” This right is cited both within the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment applied these rights only to federal courts, while this was expanded for the Fourteenth Amendment to include all states. Due process is not specifically defined within the Constitution, but is generally perceived to mean a judicial procedure that is just and fair, most commonly a trial before peers . It is an important concept and it applies in a wide number of legal cases. What is Due Process? While the Amendments guarantee due process the intention and the legal application of the term is not simple to determine. In particular, the word ‘due’ within the phrase raises significant contention. Is a process ‘due’ if it is within current laws, such as the requirements under law for a trial before peers, or is a process ‘due’ if it corresponds with the ideas of justice and liberty? In general, due process is assumed to be factors such as the right to a fair trial that is held before a jury of peers, that individuals have the right to defend themselves before they suffer any form of punishment under the law and the right to sentencing that is consistent with similar cases. Because of the ambiguity that is associated with the clause, the Supreme Court has played an important role in determining what complies and what does not comply with the constitution. The decisions the court has made have played a substantial role in determining how due process is interpreted and applied. The Supreme Court interprets the term process to include two aspects. The first aspect is procedural; this aspect determines the way that law is enforced and how rights and liabilities are administered. The second aspect is substantive; this is related to the law itself and what is involved in creating law . It is not enough for something to be legal to make it constitutional. If a proposal is passed and becomes law, but is unreasonable, or breaks part of the constitution then it can later be repealed . The clause for due process is worded identically in both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. It can be assumed that the meaning of the Fifth Amendment controls that of the Fourteenth Amendment, as the Fifth Amendment was written prior to the Fourteenth. As a consequence, the provisions of the clause cannot apply to the rest of the Fourteenth Amendment . Due Process and the Supreme Court The constitution lists three distinct interests that are protected under the due process amendment. Under the Supreme Court, only factors that can be shown to fall within one of these three factors specifically are considered relevant under the law. While this stance meets the exact wording of the Constitution, there is some question as to whether it meets the ideas or the concepts behind it. It is likely that the phrase was used as a more elegant method of saying important interests, or that the three were given as examples rather than absolutes. An example of this is the ruling by the Supreme Court that reputation does not fall under these three categories and as a consequence is not covered under the due process amendment. As a consequence the government is able to cause significant damage to the reputation of an individual without any process . The Supreme Court is the highest judicial authority within the United States. The court consists of a total of nine members at present, one of whom is the Chief Justice. Court cases that are seen by the Supreme Court within each year are limited and generally they have arisen within either the state or the federal courts, most commonly involving an aspect of federal or constitutional law . The first case in which due process was examined in the Supreme Court was the case of Gideon v. Wainwright. The defendant was denied a request for free council, and argued that this was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court overturned the decision determining that the right to counsel was a right granted under the Fourteenth Amendment . As a consequence of this decision defendants are guaranteed the right to free counsel. Another key case in regards to the right to due process was the case of Miranda v. Arizona. In this case, the defendant confessed to a crime without being aware that he had the right to an attorney present. The Supreme Court overturned the conviction, concluding the criminals must be made aware of their rights before questioning. The rights are: to remain silent, to have an attorney appointed if the defendant cannot afford one, and that their statements can be used against them . These rights are now part of regular police procedure and are read before the arrest of any suspect. The case of Mackey v. Montrym provides an interesting examination of current use of just cause in relation to drunk driving. The case was decided in 1979, despite dissenting opinions; and the ruling is still followed in drink driving laws to this day. The appeal was based on the Massachusetts state statute that forces an individual to surrender their driver’s license if they do not agree to take a breath-analysis test. The appellee Montrym considered this to be unconstitutional according to due process of the Fourteenth Amendment, as the first point in which he had to give his side of the story was at the police station after which his license had already been taken from him. Even if he had been proven not to be drunk, his license would not have been restored to him under the statute for a period of 90 days. Five justice members disputed the decision, saying that the driver was given no opportunity to be heard before his license is removed, indicating a lack of due process . Despite this, the Supreme Court considered this to be constitutional, and similar laws are in effect in many states today. A recent Supreme Court decision that occurred under the Obama administration addressed the issue of due process in relation the holding of prisoners, in this case ‘enemy combatants’ or ‘suspected enemy combatant’. The term itself is general, and there is no law or regulation that determines to whom it can be applied, indicating that theoretically, the term could legally be applied to any individual regardless of their citizenship or whether any evidence of wrong doing exists. The ruling states that anyone who is declared a ‘suspected enemy combatant’ by those who have been granted the power to give this designation are no longer considered as being a person under law. As a consequence, they have no human rights and the Constitution does not apply to them in any shape or form . This change will now make torture of prisoners declared under this status acceptable, and potentially common. Conclusion The Constitution of the United States of America guarantees many rights to the citizens of the country. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the freedom of due process concerning life, liberty and property, but it does not extend to anything that does not fall under these three categories, such as reputation. The term itself is not specific and has been refined through the Supreme Court since the implementation of the right within the constitution. It now is generally accepted to include rights such as a fair trial, a warrant for a search and sentencing. Decisions by Supreme Court have included the right of defendants to have access to representation regardless of their financial status and the right to be made aware of their right, which has resulted in the requirement of arresting officers to read individuals their rights before they are arrested. The ambiguity in the wording of the right has resulted in the continued development in the interpretation of the law, with cases that continue to reach the news concerning interpretations of the law. References Read More