LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers > General Discussion > Politics

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 132
0 members and 132 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 9,654, 05-18-2025 at 05:16 AM.
 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 09-30-2005, 02:00 PM   #11
Captain
Sir!
 
Captain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Pulps
Posts: 413
Roberts is in

Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I don't think the Contracts clause gets you much of anywhere for substantive due process. That's focused on ex post changes to teh terms of contracts, not ex ante limitations upon them.

Now, the privileges and immunities clause both in Art. IV and the 14th amendment should get your somewhere, but, since slaughterhouse and Parrish, don't.
I think someone defending Lochner might also be willing to interpret the contracts clause in a pre-1950s manner. I believe the first decision that made clear the contracts clause was focused on ex post changes was Ogden v. Saunders, after the New Deal changes in outlook.
Captain is offline  
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:01 PM.