Talk:Substantive law

Substantive rights can also be conferred by common law or precedent. Shouldn't this be added to the article?

Added a teensy bit about that. PatrickR (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems that a mention of the 14th Amendment (and the Slaughterhouse case) might be worth throwing in there. I guess that might make this article U.S. centric, but it's also not stopping someone from adding other case law. I don't know enough about it to do it myself, but maybe in a few weeks of reading, I may. Seer (talk) 19:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Minor grammatical edit

I tried editing the first sentence to be more grammatically correct, but it still seems wrong. I hope it is better than it was.

Stuffed tiger (talk) 06:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The Rules Enabling Act of June 19th, 1934, specified, "Said rules shall neither abridge, enlarge, nor modify the substantive rights of any litigant." But such substantive rights have never been defined. I would think the IX amendment guarantees that ALL rights belong to the people. So, without a definition of "substantive" the rights declared in the said Rules Enabling Act are being decided without guidance by a single judge who rules in a case. Who and Where are these "substantive rights" defined?