Is it true that your Constitutional rights cannot be violated at all? or
Is it true that your Constitutional rights cannot be violated without due process?
This is just something I have started considering recently. Is there even a difference between these two concepts? To me one says your Constitutional rights can never be violated. One says that your Constitutional rights can only be violated by a judge. Has anybody ever considered what "without due process" actually means?
It don't believe either is true. Anyone who is an adult knows (or should know) that just because something is forboden doesn't mean that it can be prevented from happening.
For example, laws don't prevent crimes from occurring, they simply specify which behaviors/acts/things are not lawful and the punishment for violating them.
Accordingly, the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights enumerates specific rights that "the people" [of the United States] have that the government is expressly prohibited from violating. Does our government violate our rights anyway? Everyday. But since these violations are prohibited then there is supposed to be recourse for those violations if you can afford to pay someone (an attorney) to hold the government accountable and enforce the protection of your rights.
Your reference to due process though refers to a person not being subjected to loss of property, liberty or life without due process of law. This specifically refers to "the/those accused" in the 5th and 14th Amendment
Due Process Introduction
The Constitution states only one command twice. The
Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." The
Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states. These words have as their central promise an assurance that all levels of American government must operate within the law ("legality") and provide fair procedures. Most of this article concerns that promise. We should briefly note, however, three other uses that these words have had in American constitutional law.
due process
In other words, some rights that we have we don't lose just because someone else is violating them. But our government has a slew of exceptions when it comes to violating our rights under the criminal code, even our constitutional rights.
For example, our government can determine that a search it wants to conduct without a warrant is "reasonable" and not a violation of the 4th Amendment. If a court agrees then the only thing that comes of the search being challenged is that any evidence obtained during that violation of the 4th Amendment has to be thrown out (cannot be used as evidence in that case nor any other if I recall correctly). Finding that the police/government violated the 4th amendment doesn't really compensate you for the privacy violations or any other harm that you may have endured.
Lastly, I am not an attorney so please validate any information relayed here to ensure my interpretation is accurate. Or not ;-)
