> Due Process means that you should be able to know the rules a system will follow if you participate in that system. That seems to me like an overly restricti

> Due Process means that you should be able to know the rules a system will follow if you participate in that system. That seems to me like an overly restrictive definition. What if the rules of the system are that a single individual gets to make all final decisions, such as in a monarchy? Is that due process? The definition of due process I've always operated on is much broader and includes mechanisms such as the ability to appeal decisions and present your case. I would argue that an adversarial process is also part of due process. I don't think you have have due process in a system that is one-sided with no advocacy for all sides on equal footing. I'm uncertain about the distinction that due process needs to be public. If two parties behind closed doors go through a process whose rules they believe to be fair beforehand, is that due process?