I know of the Ely law article but haven't had the chance to read it. It seems like I need to go back and check on a few things.
2009-01-31 18:05:54
Matoko, as a matter of principle, do you support the decision in Lochner?
Mark, as a quick point, I think there was an article written by David Bernstein commemorating the 100th anniversary of Lochner and his argument was that Lochner did not take center stage as an example of "judicial activism" (an awful an intellectually bankrupt term if there ever was one) until AFTER Roe.
If I remember Howard Gillman's work in the The Constitution Beseiged (one of the best works on pre-1937 14th Amendment jurisprudence despite excluding any discussion of Meyer and Pierce), Lochner was basically overturned by 1915 or so. By that time, the last major hurdle was minimum wage laws.
Lochner was not the Progressive rallying cry that Adkins was or even Hammer v Dagenhart with respect to child labor laws.
The commenter archive features may be temporarily disabled at times.
Mark,
I know of the Ely law article but haven't had the chance to read it. It seems like I need to go back and check on a few things.
Matoko, as a matter of principle, do you support the decision in Lochner?
Mark, as a quick point, I think there was an article written by David Bernstein commemorating the 100th anniversary of Lochner and his argument was that Lochner did not take center stage as an example of "judicial activism" (an awful an intellectually bankrupt term if there ever was one) until AFTER Roe.
If I remember Howard Gillman's work in the The Constitution Beseiged (one of the best works on pre-1937 14th Amendment jurisprudence despite excluding any discussion of Meyer and Pierce), Lochner was basically overturned by 1915 or so. By that time, the last major hurdle was minimum wage laws.
Lochner was not the Progressive rallying cry that Adkins was or even Hammer v Dagenhart with respect to child labor laws.