Boundaries of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause and Application to Those Detained by U.S. Forces Abroad

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas A. Martin
Keyword(s):  
Due Process ◽  
Fifth Amendment

Personal Jurisdiction and Fifth Amendment Due Process Revisited

2020 ◽  
pp. 231-250
Author(s):  
Chimène I. Keitner
Keyword(s):  
Due Process ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Fifth Amendment ◽  
Civil Proceedings ◽  
Personal Jurisdiction ◽  
Domestic Law ◽  
The U.S

This chapter addresses the contested role of U.S. courts in adjudicating disputes with foreign elements. As a matter of domestic law, the Due Process Clauses in the U.S. Constitution constrain the scope of adjudicatory jurisdiction that legislatures can confer on State and federal courts. The Fourth Restatement restates the U.S. law of personal jurisdiction in civil proceedings as requiring that “sufficient contacts” exist between the defendant and the forum, “and that the exercise of jurisdiction be reasonable.” These criteria limit the reach of U.S. courts’ personal jurisdiction. The chapter explores these limits and Congress’s ability to extend them. It also revisits the history and jurisprudence of Fifth Amendment due process limits on personal jurisdiction, considering the Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act of 2018 (ATCA) and the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act of 2019 (PSJVTA).

Human Dignity and the Psychology of Interrogation in Miranda v. Arizona.

1986 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 109-124 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Manfredi
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Free Will ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Human Dignity ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Fifth Amendment ◽  
Police Interrogation ◽  
Procedural Safeguards

Miranda v. Arizona, holding confessions obtained during police interrogation inadmissable unless preceded by a full and specific disclosure of a suspect's rights, is perhaps the best known U.S. Supreme Court decision on due process. The decision was built on the twin pillars of human dignity and free will. The Court determined that the intent of the Fifth Amendment is to protect human dignity, and argued that dignity is jeopardized by state actions whose effect is to diminish free will. Consequently, the Court extended the restrictions on police investigators it had been developing since Bram v. United States. In that decision, the Court ruled that confessions could not “be extracted by any sort of threats or violence, nor obtained by any direct or implied promises, however slight, nor by the exertion of any improper influence.” In Miranda, the Court attached the widest possible meaning to “improper influence,” ruling that interrogation is, in itself, an influence against which suspects must be protected by procedural safeguards. It is instructive to reflect on these issues at a time when similar questions are being raised in Canadian courts under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document