In an effort to discredit substantive due process, originalists often misinterpret the federal Due Process Clauses. Justice Clarence Thomas's Obergefell v. Hodges dissent illustrates this. In this dissent, Justice Thomas cites Blackstone's Commentaries to argue that Due Process "liberty" is merely freedom from physical restraint, what Blackstone describes as the power of "loco-motion."

This Article challenges Justice Thomas's narrow view of Due Process liberty from Obergefell v. Hodges on its own terms. It distills from the dissent and its sources five assumptions or premises supporting Justice Thomas's view, and it confronts each of these with contrary evidence from the historical record, especially the 1776 to 1789 American state "law of the land" clauses. Along the way, this Article establishes that Due Process "life, liberty, or property" is best understood as a single term of art describing all interests to be protected by the state under a Lockean social contract. The Article also illustrates the practical effect of this competing view by examining the pre-Fourteenth Amendment "law of the land" case law from North Carolina.



To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.