Thought provoking:

Due process is the idea that the government must follow the procedural rules under our system of justice. These guarantees protect Americans against arbitrary decisions by the government to take away life, liberty, and property. The Supreme Court has described due process circularly as "what process is due." There is no one set of rules for all situations. Typically, the greater the liberty interest at stake, the more extensive the due process protections must be.

Most associate due process with concepts like the right to a hearing, an unbiased decision-maker, the right to be represented by a lawyer, and the ability to present evidence in your defense. But is it really true — as the president and many others appear to believe — that the government can take away someone's rights, so long as it showers him with lots and lots of due process? The promise of due process is little comfort when those exercising that process have no respect for the rule of law.

Imagine if the government accused you of wanting to be a drug-dealer. You've never been charged with — or even accused of — having actually sold drugs. But still, someone thinks there's a good chance you may in the future. So you're given a hearing, allowed to hire a lawyer, and permitted to testify why you won't become a drug dealer in the future. But at the end of the day, a judge still believes there's an unreasonable risk that you will enter the drug business. So, in order to prevent that possibility, for the next year or so, you no longer have any Fourth Amendment rights. The police may now stop your car and search it any time they wish and enter your home to search for drugs at will. What, that doesn't sound fair? What's the problem? You were given loads and loads of due process!

An good article with the exception of one paragraph which I took issue with.

Three of the governments in the last century that experimented with their versions of red flag laws, allowing government judges to declare political enemies mentally unfit in order to make it easier to subjugate them, were communist (red) China, the Soviet Union, and Nazi Germany. Each of those nations had lots of red in its flags.

Dear, Boomer Libertarian/Conservatives, stop trying to pull the "nazis r da real communists" or "nazis r da real gungrabbers" shit, Hitler's Gun control laws while seemingly tyrannical by lolbert standards were in fact a reduction in state control compared to Weimar Germany, Hitler relaxed restrictions on firearms and German firearm ownership increased during Hitler's Government. Why? Because a legitimate government beloved by it's people has no fear of them being armed.

That title sucks. It sounds like the Author is in favor of Red Flag laws. Reading the Article that is clearly not the case but the title is very misleading.

Once you have taken Innocent Until Proven Guilty out of the equation Due Process has already been breached. THERE IS NO DUE PROCESS and that can't change at this time. At best, there is only course correction at that point.