Max A. Clark asked an important question in a letter to the editor (Journal, May 21), “How is deporting criminals unconstitutional?” The answer depends on whether the “criminal” was afforded due process.
If the criminal was afforded due process, the deportation would probably be constitutional. If the criminal was not afforded due process, the deportation would be unconstitutional.
The founders were creating a government of the people instead of a government run by one man – a strongman or a king. They had just fought the Revolutionary War to get rid of a king.
The due process clause is in the Fifth and 14th amendments. It says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. The threshold question is: What process is due?
The fundamental elements of due process of law include the right to notice, the opportunity to be heard and a decision made by an impartial tribunal. Due process doesn’t always require a trial. A strongman labeling people criminals and shipping them off without due process is unconstitutional.
A strongman wants to make all the decisions. He wants to bring the charges and be judge, jury and executioner. A strongman is certainly not an impartial decision-maker.
If a strongman or a king can deport (or execute) people on the lowest rungs of our socioeconomic ladder without due process, he will subsequently move up that ladder, threatening political foes or perhaps you. Due process is fundamental to democracy.
Bill Stroop
Dolores
