The 5th And 14th Amendment: Due Process

Introduction 

According to the 5th amendment of the American constitution, no person shall be deprived of liberty, life, or property by the federal government without the due process of the law. The due process is defined as the legal requirement for the federal government, and the state, to respect all the legal rights that are owed to an individual (Lash, 2017). This is particularly important when it comes to such judicial matters as the handling of suspected lawbreakers. To further expound on the due process, the law states that no individual is guilty of a crime until proven otherwise by a court of law. This means that such an individual should be treated as any other citizen, whose rights are protected and freedom respected. 

The Mathews v. Eldridge Case 

The Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) was a ruling by the American Supreme Court which held that all persons have a property right granted by the statute in Social Security paybacks. It ruled that the discontinuation of these benefits implicates the due process, although such a ruling would not involve a Goldberg-type hearing (Beaubien, 2016) . The case was critical in the establishment of the American administrative law. The final verdict of the case held that the due process does not require a pre-termination hearing on social security benefits, which would be terminated on the ground that the worker is no longer disabled. One of the legal principles for determining the constitutional sufficiency is the interest of a person in retaining the injury exposed by the action. 

The Mathews Test 

The Supreme Court developed a three-part balancing test dubbed, "The Mathews v. Eldridge Test," which was designed to be used by the lower courts to determine whether or not an individual has received the due process during the administrative proceedings (Doyle, 2016). According to this test, the lower court in question must consider the private interests at stake, the government's interests, which would include the potential administrative burden of the additional procedural safeguards (Drapkin, 2017) . The last element is the effect on the private interest in case an erroneous determination occurs, as well as the value of any additional procedural safeguards on the part of the private interest. 

On the Matter of Whether Mathews Provides Sufficient Guidelines 

The test is effective in providing sufficient guidelines to determine if the procedural due process has been properly provided by the court. This is particularly important because it takes into account the current state of the private interests; in this case, the individual's to ensure their welfare is provided for. It equally goes a step further to ensure that no unnecessary costs are incurred by the government, be it federal or state, in respecting the legal rights that are owed to an individual (Hunt, 2017). It is important for the government in such scenarios to protect the rights of persons living with a disability, but such an obligation should not come at the expense of the government interest, especially when such disabilities cease. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, it is important to observe that the due process granted to every individual by the federal and the state government be respected and that the interests of individuals living with disabilities be protected. But such a duty should not come at the expense of the government interest. Therefore, it is critical that the court, in determining the due process of an individual, establishes an effective mechanism to monitor the wellbeing of an individual, and the injuries sustained. The Mathews Test, thus, is effective in putting in place an effective test that evaluates the wellbeing of an individual in disability protection and compensation programs to ensure that no individual's right is not protected, and at the same time to ensure the government does not incur unnecessary cost in supporting programs for individuals who have already recovered. 

References 

Beaubien, B. V. (2016). A Matter of Balance: Mathews v. Eldridge Provides the Procedural Fairness Rhode Island's Judiciary Desperately Needs.  Roger Williams UL Rev. ,  21 , 355. 

Doyle, N. J. (2016). Confirmation Bias and the Due Process of Inter Partes Review.  IDEA ,  57 , 29. 

Drapkin, R. T. (2017). Protecting the Rights of the Mentally Disabled in Administrative Proceedings.  The Catholic Lawyer ,  39 (4), 5. 

Hunt, N. (2017). Due Process: A Casualty of the War on Terror.  Regent UL Rev. ,  30 , 345. 

Lash, K. T. (2017). Enforcing the Rights of Due Process: The Original Relationship between the Fourteenth Amendment and the 1866 Civil Rights Act.  Geo. LJ ,  106 , 1389.