Thanks to Mark Graber for the reminder of what Taft said in Adkins. But
what Robin Charlow says below somehow put me in mind of the astonishing
treatment of stare decisis in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey ruling, in
which what was wrong with Lochner was said to be not that it got anything
wrong
This is an interesting question. As Howard notes, one can overrule the
holding in Lochner without rejecting the premise that courts should serve
as active monitors of what is increasingly becoming an interest-group
polity characterized by attempting to capture the machinery of government
in order
Actually, Bunting and Lochner can be distinguished because Bunting allowed workers to work more than the prescribed number of hours if they were paid overtime, while Lochner involved an absolute ban on working more than sixty hours. Thus, Lochner was a more serious infringement on liberty of
There has been some recent attention to the constitutionality of
state laws that prohibit the direct shipment of alcoholic beverages.
On one side are Kenneth Starr and Clint Bolick, defending the interests
of the winery-backed "Coalition for Free Trade" and on the other
side are Robert Bork
I am genuinely curious as to how political and constitutional conservatives
justify taxing national taxpayers in order to pay for eminently foreseeable
disasters in California. (I keep hearing that these are the most serious
forest fires in ten years. One of the things this tells me is that a
Sandy,
Can you identify a "conservative" (and politicians don't count, you can't expect intellectual consistency from them) who has argued that California deserves aid, but "victims of structural unemployment" do not?
In a message dated 10/30/2003 3:41:53 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL
I
believe that a recent Sixth Circuit case struck down a discriminatory direct
shipment law; a ban on direct shipment might be ok, but not a discriminatory
law, which allows direct shipment by instaters but not out of staters I seem
to recall that that was the rationale... JFB
Insofar as a plausible case could be made that federal (mis)management of
federal lands (national forests, BLM forests, etc.) and federal restrictions
on land-use under various environmental statutes (such as the Endangered
Species Act) contributed to the severity of the fires, could not one then
Dear Robin,
This seems
to me almost exactly right.
Best,
Louise
At 11:24 AM 10/30/03, you wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/30/03
11:58AM
The more general question is whether (and why) Lochner was
not
formally overruled.
If memory serves (I don't have the decisions in front of me), isn't
it
so that
Sandy is correct to state that federal funds for a localized disaster
violates the original understanding of the 'general welfare' clause, as
evidenced by the belief by a prevailing majority in Congress that it had
no constitutional authority to come to the aid of Savannah after a fire
destroyed
10 matches
Mail list logo
