{"id":148,"date":"2018-10-18T22:37:59","date_gmt":"2018-10-19T02:37:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/?page_id=148"},"modified":"2025-05-12T11:11:59","modified_gmt":"2025-05-12T15:11:59","slug":"the-substance-of-dred-scott-and-roe-v-wade","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/in-print-2\/volume-16-number-2-summer-2018\/the-substance-of-dred-scott-and-roe-v-wade\/","title":{"rendered":"The Substance of Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Conservative critics of the doctrine of substantive due process often point to <em>Dred Scott v. Sandford<\/em> and <em>Roe v. Wade<\/em> to illustrate the danger of giving a substantive interpretation to the due process clauses in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. This Article takes a closer look at <em>Dred Scott<\/em> and <em>Roe<\/em> to draw out the unavoidable substantive issues that were at stake in those cases. <\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/23\/2018\/10\/16-2-Dred-Scott-Roe.pdf\">Keep Reading The Substance of Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Conservative critics of the doctrine of substantive due process often point to Dred Scott v. Sandford and Roe v. Wade to illustrate the danger of giving a substantive interpretation to [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":129,"featured_media":0,"parent":131,"menu_order":3,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"abstract.php","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_price":"","_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_header":"","_tribe_default_ticket_provider":"","_tribe_ticket_capacity":"0","_ticket_start_date":"","_ticket_end_date":"","_tribe_ticket_show_description":"","_tribe_ticket_show_not_going":false,"_tribe_ticket_use_global_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_global_stock_level":"","_global_stock_mode":"","_global_stock_cap":"","_tribe_rsvp_for_event":"","_tribe_ticket_going_count":"","_tribe_ticket_not_going_count":"","_tribe_tickets_list":"[]","_tribe_ticket_has_attendee_info_fields":false,"footnotes":"","_tec_slr_enabled":"","_tec_slr_layout":""},"class_list":["post-148","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"ticketed":false,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/148","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/129"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=148"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/148\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2655,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/148\/revisions\/2655"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/131"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=148"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}