(2009) (finding satellite monitoring burdens an offender’s liberty interest in two ways, by “its permanent, physical attachment to the offender, and by its continuous surveillance of the offender’s activities”). Thus, courts must “ensure[ ] that legislation which deprives a person of a life, liberty, or property right have, at a minimum, a rational basis, and not be arbitrary. ...” In re Treatment and Care of Luckabaugh, 351 S.C. 122, 139-40, 568 S.E.2d 338, 346 (2002); see also Nebbia v. N.Y., 291 U.S. 502, 525, 54 S.Ct. 505, 78 L.Ed. 940 (1934) (“[T]he guarantee] of due process, as has often been held, demands only that the law shall not be unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.... ”); Hamilton v. Bd. of Trs. of Oconee County Sch. Dist., 282 S.C. 519, 319 S.E.2d 717 (Ct.App.1984) (<HOLDING>). Having served her sentence, I believe
holding that deprivation of real property although it would no longer constitute a taking might be so arbitrary or irrational that it runs afoul of the due process clause holding that a law survives rational basis review so long as there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification holding that retroactive aspects of legislation must satisfy due process a burden met simply by showing that the retroactive application of the legislation is itself justified by a rational legislative purpose holding that deprivation of property must conform to due process principles holding that to comport with due process the legislation must have a rational basis for the deprivation and may not be so inadequate that the judiciary will characterize it as arbitrary