Valid Rule Due Process Challenges: Bond v. United States and Erie’s Constitutional Source
Kermit Roosevelt III
University of Pennsylvania Law School
William & Mary Law Review, Vol. 54, pp.. 987, 2013
U of Penn Law School, Public Law Research Paper No. 12-18
This article begins by asking what constitutional provision is violated by the enforcement of law without a lawmaker. Taking a positivist view — i.e., that law does not exist without a lawmaker — it concludes that the problem of law without a lawmaker collapses into the problem of coercion without law. Coercion without law violates the Due Process Clause in an obvious way: it is deprivation of something “without...law.” The article then explores the existence of this form of substantive due process in American law, arguing that we find it in three somewhat surprising places: Lochner-era substantive due process; modern federalism cases like Morrison, Lopez, and Bond; and Erie itself. Erie’s constitutional source, it concludes, is the Due Process Clause.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 36
Keywords: Constitutional law, coercion, substantive due process of law, Lochner, federalism, Erie v. Tompkins, federal common law, overbreadth, third-party standing, states’ rightsAccepted Paper Series
Date posted: March 9, 2012 ; Last revised: February 25, 2013
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.734 seconds