The pre-2009 nightmare?

by Chris on February 8, 2012

As discussed in a previous post, notice and an opportunity to be heard are fundamental to due process of law. The U.S. Constitution provides that a person may not be deprived of property without due process of law. Additionally, the Louisiana Constitution mandates that procedural due process rights include a provision of notice when any property rights are put at risk. Both federal and Louisiana state courts have held that such notice must comply with requirements of the U.S. Constitution.

This means that there must be harmony between Louisiana courts, interpreting Louisiana law, all while operating under the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court. The problem arises when Louisiana law does not meet the constitutional requirements of the U.S. Supreme Court. Since Louisiana is a civil law state, it requires following a code of principles (enacted by the legislature), thus the legislature is the ultimate authority. But if following a law as written violates the federal constitution, courts are left to create “judicial doctrines” (i.e. legislate from the bench. ).  Such is the case in Mennonite and it’s progeny, as mentioned in the previous post.

Fortunately, there is a glimmer of hope in the 2009 enactment. The guidelines of procedure are apparently clear, and seem to balance the due process rights of both tax buyers and debtors. One uniform set of rules and guiding principles for every situation, rather than our previous “Frankenstein” of jurisprudence–a monster loosely stitched together.

Did you like this? Share it:

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: