Talk:Due process

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2021 and 2 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Modrake21. Peer reviewers: Zstillman, Legaleagle2022, Mosadzi1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

This article suggests that “due process” is rather more an American than a British concept. However, the Leveller “Agreement of the Free People of England” of 1649 clearly contains the essential elements of “due process,” as that term is used in the United States Constitution of 1789 and the 14th Amendment of 1866. The “Agreement” calls for jury trials; it requires that no one be subject to loss of life, liberty or property unless by way of a law promulgated by a representative legislature; that no defendant be required to testify under oath against him or herself; and that the person accused has the right to representation by counsel. Perhaps someone with a better understanding of the unwritten British constitution than my own can advise whether or not the “Agreement” forms any part of British constitutional law. 75.69.13.250 (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Violation of WP:UNDUE

Last time I checked, Wikipedia policy is that subject-specific matter should be parked in an article devoted to that topic, and then more general articles should SUMMARIZE tersely what is in the more specific article. In this article, we have two wild overlong tangents on Japanese-American internment and the NDAA, which are not dealt with in the Due Process Clause article. Furthermore, the Wikipedia article on Japanese-American internment ALREADY mentions the fact that the internment was a massive violation of due process.

Discussing those topics here is nearly as stupid and mindless as trying to discuss every female human being in the world in the Wikipedia article on the female reproductive system on the basis that all those women have reproductive systems. In other words, relevance to the subject matter of an article is a necessary but not sufficient criterion for inclusion---it has to be very closely relevant and nonredundant, or else Wikipedia articles become massively useless collections of random information, which violates WP:NOT. Any objections before I take out the garbage? --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, no objections. Taking out the garbage. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Access to the courts

What is the difference between the concepts of "due process" and "access to the courts"? Kroach2 (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Due process is a fundamental constitutional right. Access to the courts (in the dual sense of access to a neutral adjudicator provided by the state and public access to the proceedings) is a right which is generally considered to be one of the rights which is considered to be part of due process. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Due process. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.andrewhyman.com/due.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

28 Edw 3 c 3

The statute of Edward III in which "due process" first appears was previously translated as follows:

No man of what state or condition he be, shall be put out of his lands or tenements nor taken, nor disinherited, nor put to death, without he be brought to answer by due process of law.

This is a subtly different translation than the one in Statutes of the Realm, which is:

Item, That no Man of what Estate or Condition that he be, shall be put out of Land or Tenement, nor taken, nor imprisoned, nor disinherited, nor put to Death, without being brought in Answer by due Process of the Law.

— "Liberty of Subject (1354)". legislation.gov.uk. The National Archives. 28 Edw. 3 c. 3.

In particular "or imprisoned" is omitted. At Due Process Clause additionally there was a parenthesis: "(taken to mean arrested or deprived of liberty by the state)" which is obviously an interpretation. What's the source for this translation (and interpretation)? An American translation roughly contemporaneous with the Constitution would be preferable to one from the UK over 30 years later.

Additionally, what is the meaning in Law French of "due proces"? "Due" appears to be modern dû (past participle of devoir, 'must'), but then the prepositional phrase "par due procès" doesn't make syntactic sense. Or it might be dû "hard" as in modern Jèrriais (continental dur). Alternatively it could just be English "due process", a mix of languages like the infamous "un brickbat que narrowly mist", albeit 300 years earlier. Do any texts discuss this? Hairy Dude (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2026 (UTC)