Doktrína řádného procesu jako prostředek inkorporace Bill of Rights

The incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment belongs among the most complex topics of American constitutional law. The first question to ask is obviously “Was the Bill of Rights incorporated against the states with the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment?” Even if we answer this essential and difficult question in the affirmative, we face another one, no less important, which is: Through which of the clauses of section one of the Fourteenth Amendment was incorporation implemented? Among the proponents of the incorporation theory we find two groups: one that advocates incorporation through the privileges or immunities clause and another one that supports incorporation through the due process clause or the so called doctrine of substantive due process. Substantive due process is one of the phenomenons of American constitutional law that influenced legal evolution in the United States in a fundamental way, mainly during the 20th century when the concept of substantive due process experienced a steep rise that manifested itself not only in the area of protection of rights and freedoms not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, but also those clearly mentioned in the amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights. It was the very substantive due process doctrine which was used by the federal Supreme Court as basis for gradual incorporation of the individual guarantees contained in the Bill of Rights to state and local level. It is, however, necessary to ask whether the Supreme Court, while trying to reach this goal, did not embrace a doctrine which lacks basis in the text of the Constitution and the traditions of the common law, thus being only an artificial creation of the Supreme Court itself as to this day, many suggest. This paper deals with the origins, historical meaning and evolution of the concept of due process and tries to show whether the substantive due process doctrine has a real legal foundation and can therefore serve as means for incorporation of the Bill of Rights.

1. Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578 (1897)

2. AYNES, Richard L.: On Misreading John Bingham and the Fourteenth Amendment. The Yale Law Journal [online]. 1993, Vol. 103. [cit. 2023-12-11]. Dostupné na: https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=7516&context=ylj CrossRef

3. Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833)

4. BERGER, Raoul: Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Second Edition. Carmel: Liberty Fund, 1997.

5. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940)

6. Civil Rights Act (1866)

7. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856)

8. EBERLE, Edward J. Procedural Due Process: The Original Understanding. Constitutional Commentary, 293. [online]. 1987. [cit. 2023-12-11]. Dostupné na: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1303&context=concomm

9. ELY, John Hart. Democracy and Distrust: a Theory of Judicial Review. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002.

10. Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824)

11. Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925)

12. Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884)

13. JUROW, Keith: Untimely Thoughts: A Reconsideration of the Origins of Due Process of Law. The American Journal of Legal History, Vol. 19, No. 4. [online]. 1975. [cit. 2023-12-11]. Dostupné na: https://www.jstor.org/stable/845053?read-now=1&seq=15#page_scan_tab_contents CrossRef

14. Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905)

15. McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)

16. Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 59 U.S. 272 (1856)

17. New York Assembly. Remarks on an Act for Regulating Elections, [6 February 1787]. National Archives [online]. [cit. 2023-12-11]. Dostupné na: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-0017

18. Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York; July 26, 1788 [online]. [cit. 2023-12-11]. Dostupné na: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ratny.asp

19. Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962)

20. SELTENREICH, Radim, KUKLÍK, Jan: Dějiny angloamerického práva. 2 vydání. Praha: Leges, 2011.

21. STORY, Joseph. Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. 3 vols. [online]. 1833 [cit. 2023-12-11]. Dostupné na: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendV-VI_criminal_processs52.html

22. SUNSTEIN, Cass Robert. Constitutional Myth-Making: Lessons from the Dred Scott Case. Occasional Papers [online]. 1996, No. 37, s. 11 [cit. 2023-12-11]. Dostupné na: https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/12942329

23. The New York Bill of Rights Statute, 1787 (L. 1787, CH 1)

24. Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. ___ (2019)

25. Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78 (1908)

26. Ústava spojených států amerických

27. Ústava státu New York (1821)

28. Willson v. Black Bird Creek Marsh Co., 27 U.S. 245 (1829)

29. WURMAN, Ilan: The Origins of Substantive Due Process. University of Chicago Law Review: Vol. 87: Iss. 3, Article 3. [online]. 2020. Dostupné na: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6191&context=uclrev