The Constitution of the United States of America as Amended to December 1, 1924

Sec. 1.-Due Process-Definition

Amend. 14.-Rights of Citizens

called a court or a board of registration, the final determination of a legal question.

Reetz v. Michigan, 188 U. S. 507.

Palmer v. McMahon, 133 U. S. 668.

Ballard v. Hunter, 204 U. S. 241.

Murray v. Hoboken Land, etc., Co., 18 How. 272.

Kelly v. Pittsburgh, 104 U. S. 78.

Ex parte Wall, 107 U. S. 265.

Ascertained by process of judicial inclusion and exclusion.-The meaning of the term "due process of law" should be ascertained by the actual process of judicial inclusion or exclusion, as the cases presented for decision require, with the reasoning on which such decisions shall be founded.

Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U. S. 104.
Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U. S. 78.

Kentucky R. R. Tax Cases, 115 U. S. 330.

By reference to the fifth amendment.-The fourteenth amendment legitimately operates to extend to the citizens and residents of the States the same protection against arbitrary State legislation affecting life, liberty, and property as is offered by the fifth amendment against similar legislation by Congress; but the Federal courts ought not to interfere when what is complained of amounts to the enforcement of the laws of a State applicable to all persons in like circumstances and conditions, and the Federal courts should not interfere unless there is some abuse of law amounting to confiscation of property or deprivation of personal rights.

Hibben v. Smith, 191 U. S. 325.

French v. Barber, etc., Co., 181 U. S. 329.

Carroll v. Greenwich Ins. Co., 199 U. S. 401.
Hurtado v. California, 110 U. S. 535.

Limitation on State Action

This amendment does not deprive a State of the power to compel a township, as one of its political subdivisions, to levy and collect taxes for the purpose of paying the amount assessed against such township for the public benefits accruing for the construction of a drain.

Soliah v. Heskin, 222 U. S. 522.

A municipal ordinance is to be regarded as in effect a statute of the State, adopted under a power granted it by the State legislature, and hence it is an act of the State within this amendment. North American Cold Storage Co. v. Chicago, 211 U. S. 306. The protection of the Federal Constitution applies whatever the form in which the legislative power of the State is exerted, whether by a constitution, an act of the legislature, or any act of any subordinate instrumentality of the State exercising delegated legislative authority, like an ordinance of a municipality or an order of a commission.

Standard Scale Co. v. Farrell, 249 U. S. 571.

Amend. 14.-Rights of Citizens

Sec. 1.-Due Process-State Action

When Constitutional Question Involved

The validity of a statute is drawn in question whenever the power to enact it, as it is by its terms or is made to read by construction, is fairly open to denial, and is denied.

Miller v. Cornwall R. Co., 168 U. S. 132.

Questions of State or general law as to titles and rights do not present questions arising under the United States Constitution.

Devine v. Los Angeles, 202 U. S. 313.

Who May Invoke Constitutional Right

The constitutionality of a statute can not be assailed without showing that the party questioning it has been or is likely to be deprived of his property without due process of law; a court can not assume to decide the general question whether the statute as to some other person amounts to a deprivation of property.

Tyler v. Judges, 179 U. S. 410.

A party has no interest to assert that a statute is unconstitutional because it might be construed so as to cause it to violate the Constitution. His right is limited solely to the inquiry whether in the case which he presents the effect of applying the statute is to deprive him of a constitutional right.

Castillo v. McConnico, 168 U. S. 680.

Straus v. Foxworth, 231 U. S. 162.

New Orleans v. New Orleans Water Works Co., 142 U. S. 88.

Construction of State Constitutions and Statutes

The essentials of due process of law should be distinguished from matters which may or may not be essential under the terms of a State assessing or taxing law. In Castillo v. McConnico (168 U. S. 683) the court said:

The two are neither correlative or coterminous. The first, due process of law, must be found in the State statute, and can not be departed from without violating the Constitution of the United States. The other depends on the lawmaking power of the State, and as it is solely the result of such authority may vary or change as the legislative will of the State sees fit to ordain. It follows that, to determine the existence of the one, due process of law is the final province of this court, whilst the ascertainment of the other, that is, what is merely essential under the State statute, is a State question within the final jurisdiction of courts of last resort of the several States.

See also

In re Converse, 137 U. S. 624.

Howard v. Kentucky, 200 U. S. 164.

O'Neil v. Northern Colo., etc., Co., 242 U. S. 20.

But see

Green Bay, etc., Canal Co. v. Patten Paper Co., 172 U. S. 58, in which it was held that when by the judgment of a State court there was drawn into question the validity of an authority exercised under the United States, and the decision was erroneously against such authority, there has been a deprivation of property without due process of law.

When the parties have been fully heard in the regular course of judicial proceedings, an erroneous decision of the State court does not deprive the unsuccessful party of his property without due process of law.

Central Land Co. v. Laidley, 159 U. S. 112.

Bonner v. Gorman, 213 U. S. 86.

Delmar Jockey Club v. Missouri, 210 U. S. 324.

Tracy v. Ginzberg, 205 U. S. 170.

Arrowsmith v. Harmoning, 118 U. S. 194.

Morley v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 146 U. S. 171.

Error in deciding what common law is.-A State has the right to alter the common law at any time, although it has theretofore adopted it with certain limitations. If, through its courts, it err in deciding what the common law is, yet if no fundamental and absolutely all-important right be thereby denied to an accused, he still has due process of law, and he can not complain to the Federal court regarding the error, assuming, of course, that the decision did not conflict with some specific provision of the Federal Constitution.

West v. Louisiana, 194 U. S. 258.

Amend. 14.-Rights of Citizens

Sec. 1.-Due Process -State Courts

On matters of practice.-A decision upon a matter of practice under the State procedure does not draw in question any right under this provision.

Thorington v. Montgomery, 147 U. S. 492.

Ballard v. Hunter, 204 U. S. 258.

Cross v. North Carolina, 132 U. S. 140.

Simon v. Craft, 182 U. S. 436.

Stevens v. Nichols, 157 U. S. 371.

Sawyer v. Piper, 189 U. S. 157.

Iowa Cent. R. Co. v. Iowa, д60 U. S. 393.
Rothschild v. Knight, 184 U. S. 334.

Statutes of limitation. The legislature may prescribe a limitation for the bringing of suits where none previously existed, as well as shorten the time within which suits to enforce existing causes of action may be commenced, provided, in each case, a reasonable time, taking all the circumstances into consideration, be given by the new law for the commencement of suit before the bar takes effect.

Wheeler v. Jackson, 137 U. S. 255.

Turner v. New York, 168 U. S. 94.

Saranac Land, etc., Co. v. Comptroller, 177 U. S. 318.

Barrett v. Holmes, 102 U. S. 655.

Soper v. Lawrence Bros. Co., 201 U. S. 359.

Kaukauna Water Co. v. Green Bay, etc., Co., 142 U. S. 280.

As to removal of the bar of the statute of limitation, see

Campbell v. Holt, 115 U. S. 623.

Person

In general. The meaning of the word "person" as used in this amendment is not to be restricted by the definition of the word "citizens" in the first clause. "Person" is to be taken in its broadest significance, and includes all individuals within the United States regardless of race, color, or nationality.

Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356.
Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U. S. 275.
Neal v. Delaware, 103 U. S. 370.

Soon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U. S. 703.

Corporations. Corporations are persons within the meaning of this amendment.

Covington, etc., Road Co. v. Sandford, 164 U. S. 592.
Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 173 U. S. 690.

Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Ellis, 165 U. S. 154.

Home Ins. Co. v. New York, 134 U. S. 606.

Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Mackay, 127 U. S. 209.

Western Turf Assn. v. Greenberg, 204 U. S. 359.

Northwestern, etc., Ins. Co. v. Riggs, 203 U. S. 243.

The reserved right of a State to amend corporate charter can not be so exercised as to take property of corporation without due process of law.

Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Wisconsin, 238 U. S. 491.

Except in matters of interstate commerce, a State may undoubtedly prescribe the conditions on which a foreign corporation shall be permitted to do business within it, and may include

Amend. 14.-Rights of Citizens

Sec. 1.-Due Process-Person

therein a provision with regard to the service of process on its agents. Where, therefore, a foreign corporation does business in such State, it will be presumed to have assented to these terms. But it is essential in every case in which personal jurisdiction over such a corporation is claimed that there shall have been an actual and substantial transaction of business by it within the State, and the process by which jurisdiction is sought to be obtained must have been served on one who is truly representative of the corporation.

Frawley v. Pennsylvania Casualty Co., 124 Fed. 262.
Lafayette Ins. Co. v. French, 18 How. 404.

St. Clair v. Cox, 106 U. S. 350.

A statute incorporating a State fraternal organization of the same name as that of a local organization which held its charter from a foreign corporation does not violate this amendment. National Council v. State Council, 203 U. S. 151.

Aliens." Any person" includes aliens.

Truax v. Raich, 239 U. S. 33.

Disconto Gesellschaft v. Umbreit, 208 U. S. 570.

Deprivation

The Constitution contains no definition of the word "deprivation." To determine its significance, therefore, it is necessary to ascertain the effect which usage has given it when employed in the same or any like connection.

Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 123.

A taking of railroad property under administrative regulation must be tested by considering whether in view of all the facts the taking was arbitrary and unreasonable or was justified by the public necessities which the carrier could lawfully be compelled to meet.

Washington v. Fairchild, 224 U. S. 510.

Great Northern R. Co. v. Minnesota, 238 U. S. 340.
Life and Liberty

In general. This amendment does not limit the power of the States to deal with crimes but merely prevents particular persons or classes from being deprived of equal and impartial justice under the law, and where proceedings are conducted in the ordinary forms of criminal prosecutions in the State there is no denial of due process of law.

Caldwell v. Texas, 137 U. S. 697.
Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 539.

Bergemann v. Backer, 157 U. S. 658.
Minder v. Georgia, 183 U. S. 559.

Frank v. Mangum, 237 U. S. 309.

The liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly free from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good. On any other basis organized society could not exist

« 이전 계속 »

도서