Art. I, Sec. 10[1]: “No state shall … pass any … law impairing the obligation of contracts.”
Amendment V [1791]: “No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
Question role of the court in this realm
Libertarian view: let the people do what they want, skeptical of redistributive motives.
Social democratic view: equality is the foundation of human rts, the state has an obligation to engage in the creation of equality. (Rawls, Dworkin)
Judicial Enforcement of Economic Regulation –
Lochner v. NY, 1905: strikes down state reg of bakers’ max hours/min wages b/c vs rt to work & K. Peckham Majority: Saw the states action as an infringement on the rts of the bakers. Applied strict scrutiny and found that the states purposes were not sufficiently compelling. Distinguishes Holden v. Hardy which upheld mining work regs b/c had more severe heath risks. Libertarian view of justice.
Compelling state purpose would be if law would prevent harm to self and protect health/safety of workers and to others (consumers). Court presumed invidious motives b/c rts were being restricted, though eco rts were involved.
Fails to look at facts and is a paradigm of abuse of judicial decision-making. NY legislature had equality purpose but Peckham d/n think this is const state purpose.
Harlan Dissent: p. 495 now the law. . Majority has written out equality in bargaining purpose w/out reason. Equality is acceptable state purpose and by removing equality from reach of the legislature, accept inequality as natural--how Plessy is justified Turned legislative into judicial questions and were not sensitive to relevant facts/studies such as Hirt’s data on diseases in labor mkt. Economic issues should be left to the legislature who can be more sensitive to economic fact finding and bargaining power problems between mgmt and the bakers
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
