Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=395620
 
 

Citations (8)



 
 

Footnotes (285)



 


 



Lochner Era Revisionism, Revised: Lochner and the Origins of Fundamental Rights Constitutionalism


David Bernstein


George Mason University School of Law


Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. 82, No. 1, 2003
George Mason University Law & Economics Research Paper No. 03-18

Abstract:     
Lochner v. New York and its eponymous jurisprudential era have been central to constitutional discourse and debate in the United States for nearly one hundred years. Until recently, the legal community's understanding of the Lochner era was clouded by myths left over from the ideological and political battles of the Progressive and New Deal eras. In particular, the Lochner era Justices were portrayed as reactionary Social Darwinists who sought to impose a system of economic laissez-faire on the public. More recently, revisionist historians have disproved this and other myths, and have attempted to construct a more historically-grounded understanding of the Lochner era. The most popular revisionist work is Howard Gillman's book, "The Constitution Besieged." Gillman contends that the Lochner era Court was motivated by opposition to "class legislation," what today we would call special interest legislation. However, Gillman grossly overstates the role of class legislation analysis on the police powers jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court during the Lochner era. Rather, as this Article shows, the basic motivation for Lochnerian jurisprudence was the Justices' belief that Americans had fundamental unenumerated constitutional rights, and that those rights were protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The Justices had a generally historicist outlook, seeking to discover the content of fundamental rights through an understanding of which rights had created and advanced liberty among the Anglo-American people.

This Article, then, argues that the jurisprudential significance of Lochner was not, as Gillman and his supporters would have it, that the Court enforced a ban on class legislation. Quite the opposite, Lochner's primary importance is that it moved the Supreme Court away from class legislation (equal protection) analysis of police power legislation to an analysis that relied on the Justices' understanding of the fundamental liberties of the American people. In this regard, Lochner was the progenitor of modern substantive due process cases such as Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade. Some will argue that the current Court should reassess its endorsement of Roe, because it is in the same tradition as Lochner. But perhaps the proper reaction to the conclusion that Lochner and Roe are in the same fundamental rights tradition is to reassess our understanding of Lochner.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 61

Keywords: Law & Humanities, Constitutional Law

JEL Classification: K100

working papers series





Download This Paper

Date posted: April 22, 2003 ; Last revised: June 29, 2008

Suggested Citation

Bernstein, David, Lochner Era Revisionism, Revised: Lochner and the Origins of Fundamental Rights Constitutionalism. Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. 82, No. 1, 2003; George Mason University Law & Economics Research Paper No. 03-18. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=395620 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.395620

Contact Information

David Eliot Bernstein (Contact Author)
George Mason University School of Law ( email )
3301 Fairfax Drive
Arlington, VA 22201
United States
703-993-8089 (Phone)
703-993-8202 (Fax)
HOME PAGE: http://mason.gmu.edu/~dbernste
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 10,410
Downloads: 1,072
Download Rank: 10,209
Citations:  8
Footnotes:  285

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo7 in 0.297 seconds