Talk:Due process

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
replies: text: Okay, no objections. Taking out the garbage. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Violation of [[WP:UNDUE]] 

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

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Due process. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  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  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 ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified