Lindsey lived in a public housing project. The Housing Authority tacked an eviction notice on Lindsey’s door, giving her notice
that she was being legally evicted. The Housing Authority appeared in court on the appointed day, but Lindsey did not. The court granted the Housing Authority’s request for eviction because Lindsey did not appear in court as per her notice. When Lindsey’s time to appeal expired, she was evicted from her home. Lindsey claimed that she never received the Housing Authority’s notice. The Housing Authority relied on a state law that allowed it to give legal notice by tacking a notice of eviction to the occupant’s door. Lindsey filed a lawsuit against the Housing Authority alleging that her constitutional rights to due process were violated by the law. Were they? Explain your answer. [Greene v. Lindsey, 456 U.S. 444 (1982)]
Because the Housing Authority tacked an eviction notice on Lindsey’s door. That means she has to receive it. If they send it through the mail, it'll make sense that she hasn't received the letter because it could be lost in the other mail, but the Housing Authority put it on the door which means she did see it, but she just ignored it. She knows that she was supposed to come to court on time and on the correct date. It's like if she's turning in homework late in #oogle Classroom while ignoring the due date and time. To be honest, I think that maybe the Housing Authority should of give her at least two or three warnings, but Lindsey did actually see the letter.
"Why did we ban retroactive criminal laws? Because they undermine the "central values" of free societies. To allow this would threated the rule of law itself, it would become a rule of officials instead."
The Social Contract outlines the basis for a legitimate political order within a framework of classical republicanism. Published in 1762, it became one of the most influential works of political philosophy in the western tradition.
