» » Lochner v. New York: Economic Regulation on Trial

Lochner v. New York: Economic Regulation on Trial epub download

by Paul Kens


Lochner v. New York (1905), which pitted a conservative activist judiciary against a reform-minded legislature. This is a welcome contribution.

Lochner v. Kens places the Lochner decision firmly within its historical context and uses it as a window to an age. In the course of his narrative, Kens introduces the reader to an array of subjects including the noisome conditions in New York’s tenement bakeries, Progressive reformers and Tammany Hall politics; nineteenth-century intellectual, economic, and labor history; and the lives and personalities of important jurists and lawyers.

Kens sets the stage for Lochner by examining the baking industry and the effort to regulate maximum hours in the early twentieth century. Unlike many industries at that time, small independently owned businesses still dominated the baking trade, and bakeshop owners usually looked for the least expensive space they could find in which to practice their trade. New York book. Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read.

Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. Text of Lochner v. New York, 198 . Summary of Lochner v. New York. Supreme Court Landmark Case Lochner v. New York" from C-SPAN's Landmark Cases: Historic Supreme Court Decisions.

Part of the Landmark Law Cases and American Society Series). Lochner v. New York was a 1905 Supreme Court case where an anodyne state law regulating working hours in bakeries was ruled uncontitutional because it breached the "freedom" of workers and employers to form employment contracts on any terms the market allowed. The notion of liberty of contract had no constitutional basis - it was invented by conservative social theorists after the Civil War - but it had been smuggled into American jurisprudence by activist judges in the guise of enforcing the 14th amendment. New York(1905), which pitted a conservative activist judiciary against . In this concise and readable guide, Paul Kens shows us why the case remains. New York(1905), which pitted a conservative activist judiciary against a reform-minded legislature, remains one of the most important and most freque. Book Description: Lochner v. New York(1905), which pitted a conservative activist judiciary against a reform-minded legislature, remains one of the most important and most frequently cited cases in Supreme Court history.

Paul Kens Kens’s masterful study of this case updates an revises his 1990 book on the same subject. New York (1905), which pitted a conservative activist judiciary against a reform-minded legislature, remains one of the most important and most frequently cited cases in Supreme Court history. In this concise and readable guide, Paul Kens shows us why the case remains such an important marker in the ideological battles between the free market and the regulatory state. Kens’s masterful study of this case updates an revises his 1990 book on the same subject.

Varying Form of Title: Lochner versus New York. Publication, Distribution, et. Lawrence Includes bibliographical references (p. 195-199) and index. Download PDF book format. Download DOC book format.

Feel free to highlight your book. Free shipping on rental returns. 21-day refund guarantee Learn more. Popular items with this book. Kens, however, reminds us that these hotly contested ideas and principles emerged from a very real human drama involving workers, owners, legislators, lawyers, and judges.

Lochner v. New York (1905), which pitted a conservative activist judiciary against a reform-minded legislature, remains one of the most important and most frequently cited cases in Supreme Court history. In this concise and readable guide, Paul Kens shows us why the case remains such an important marker in the ideological battles between the free market and the regulatory state.

The Supreme Court's decision declared unconstitutional a New York State law limiting bakery workers to no more than ten hours per day or sixty hours per week. By evoking its "police power," the state hoped to eliminate the employers' abuse of these workers. But the 5-4 majority opinion, authored by Justice Rufus Peckham and renounced by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, cited the state's violation of due process and the "right of contract between employers and employees," which the majority believed was protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Critics jumped on the decision as an example of conservative juidicial activism promoting laissez-faire capitalism at the expense of progressive reform. As series editors Peter Hoffer and N.E.H. Hull note in their preface, "the case also raised a host of significant questions regarding the impetus of state legislatures to enter the workplace and regulate hours, wages, and working conditions; of the role of courts as monitors of the constitutionality of state regulation of the economy; and of the place of economic and moral theories in judicial thinking."

Kens, however, reminds us that these hotly contested ideas and principles emerged from a very real human drama involving workers, owners, legislators, lawyers, and judges. Within the crucible of an industrializing America, their story reflected the fierce competition between two powerful ideologies.

This book is part of the Landmark Law Cases and American Society series.

Lochner v. New York: Economic Regulation on Trial epub download

ISBN13: 978-0700609185

ISBN: 0700609180

Author: Paul Kens

Category: History

Subcategory: Americas

Language: English

Publisher: Univ Pr of Kansas (October 1, 1998)

Pages: 216 pages

ePUB size: 1227 kb

FB2 size: 1214 kb

Rating: 4.4

Votes: 232

Other Formats: mobi doc docx lrf

Related to Lochner v. New York: Economic Regulation on Trial ePub books

Arilak
On the surface the case seems simple enough. The state of New York passed a law limiting bakery workers to no more than ten hours per day or sixty hours per week. A bakeshop owner, John Lochner, was fined for violating that law, took the matter to court and lost, and appealed the decision all the way up to the Supreme Court. In its majority opinion, the Court ruled the state law was an unconstitutional infringement on bakery owners’ “right to contract” as embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment. The case was Lochner v. New York (1905), one of the most important and most frequently cited cases in Supreme Court history, and the subject of this marvelous and insightful book. The author, Paul Kens, a professor at Texas State University, does a bang up job in explaining the many issues that went into the court’s 5-4 ruling and its aftermath.

What’s notable is that the substantive due process clause, and the liberty of contract clause, on which the court based much of its opinion, is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. In fact, they’re theories that were developed in the 19th century and adopted by the Court to justify what amounted to laissez-faire constitutionalism, and used to determine the outcome of a number of important Court decisions, of which Lochner v. New York is one of the most notorious.

The author examines the two theories, as well as two legal principles that figured in the case: “negative state” and “police power.” But the keys to the decision were the first two: the substantive due process clause, and the liberty of contract clause.

The Court’s economic interpretation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, restyled as "substantive due process," had its origin in a book by an English philosopher named Herbert Spencer. Published in the U.S. in 1865, the book is entitled SOCIAL STATICS. In it, Spencer blended social Darwinism with laissez-faire in an attempt to develop a universal moral law that amounted to something akin to societal survival of the fittest. Add the ideas of William Graham Sumner, the chair of political and social science at Yale, and you arrive at an explanation for poverty and a justification for inequality. In their view, the only way to reduce inequality would be to take from the fit and give to to the unfit. Not only would this neutralize the purpose of the laws of nature, it would violate the social Darwinist concept of liberty. At a time when socialism was on the rise, and labor was striking for more pay and better working conditions, and collectivism appeared to threaten the liberty of the individual, the Supreme Court looked for a doctrine to quell what they believed was a threat to individual liberty and therefore private enterprise. The Spencer-Sumner theory did the job nicely, and was used to retool the due process clause so that it protected business interests above all else. No thought was given to the welfare of workers; in this scenario, the government would allow them no comfort and no aid. Survival of the fittest.

The other theory, of liberty of contract, was developed by Justice Stephen J. Field, which stretched the concept of property to include the potential for profit. Beginning with his dissent in the Slaughter-House Cases, Field melded the concepts of liberty and property—both protected by the Fourteenth Amendment—to arrive at a concept not found in the Constitution but rather upon the idea of natural rights, at least a version of natural rights expounded by laissez-faire economists. According to the author, “it was as if Field had laid a page of the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT REPORTS over SOCIAL STATICS and traced Herbert Spencer’s first principle.”

Not everyone on the High Court was buying into the liberty of contract/substantive due process clauses, most notably Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. Holmes’ dissent in Lochner v. New York was brief and pointed: “The Fourteenth Amendment does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer’s Social Statics.” In other words, there was nothing “natural” about laissez-faire. It was just an economic theory, and “a constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory,” Holmes said. “It is made for people of fundamentally different views, and the accident of our finding certain opinions natural and familiar or novel and shocking ought not to conclude our judgement upon the question whether statutes embodying them conflict with the Constitution of the United States. General principles do not decide concrete cases.”

The Lochner decision ushered in what has become known as the Lochner era—in which the Court struck down a number of state economic regulations—and ended in 1937 with West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, which overturned an earlier Lochner-era decision.

This book is well versed on the many issues surrounding Lochner v. New York, both before and after the Court's decision, as well as the disgusting state of bakeries in turn-of-the century New York, public health, sweatshops, tenement life, a variety of social movements, the early life of organized labor, and New York politics. While not long (187 pages), the book requires careful reading. Reading it is a great way to get lost some snowy weekend, as it did for me earlier this year. Five stars.
Arilak
On the surface the case seems simple enough. The state of New York passed a law limiting bakery workers to no more than ten hours per day or sixty hours per week. A bakeshop owner, John Lochner, was fined for violating that law, took the matter to court and lost, and appealed the decision all the way up to the Supreme Court. In its majority opinion, the Court ruled the state law was an unconstitutional infringement on bakery owners’ “right to contract” as embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment. The case was Lochner v. New York (1905), one of the most important and most frequently cited cases in Supreme Court history, and the subject of this marvelous and insightful book. The author, Paul Kens, a professor at Texas State University, does a bang up job in explaining the many issues that went into the court’s 5-4 ruling and its aftermath.

What’s notable is that the substantive due process clause, and the liberty of contract clause, on which the court based much of its opinion, is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. In fact, they’re theories that were developed in the 19th century and adopted by the Court to justify what amounted to laissez-faire constitutionalism, and used to determine the outcome of a number of important Court decisions, of which Lochner v. New York is one of the most notorious.

The author examines the two theories, as well as two legal principles that figured in the case: “negative state” and “police power.” But the keys to the decision were the first two: the substantive due process clause, and the liberty of contract clause.

The Court’s economic interpretation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, restyled as "substantive due process," had its origin in a book by an English philosopher named Herbert Spencer. Published in the U.S. in 1865, the book is entitled SOCIAL STATICS. In it, Spencer blended social Darwinism with laissez-faire in an attempt to develop a universal moral law that amounted to something akin to societal survival of the fittest. Add the ideas of William Graham Sumner, the chair of political and social science at Yale, and you arrive at an explanation for poverty and a justification for inequality. In their view, the only way to reduce inequality would be to take from the fit and give to to the unfit. Not only would this neutralize the purpose of the laws of nature, it would violate the social Darwinist concept of liberty. At a time when socialism was on the rise, and labor was striking for more pay and better working conditions, and collectivism appeared to threaten the liberty of the individual, the Supreme Court looked for a doctrine to quell what they believed was a threat to individual liberty and therefore private enterprise. The Spencer-Sumner theory did the job nicely, and was used to retool the due process clause so that it protected business interests above all else. No thought was given to the welfare of workers; in this scenario, the government would allow them no comfort and no aid. Survival of the fittest.

The other theory, of liberty of contract, was developed by Justice Stephen J. Field, which stretched the concept of property to include the potential for profit. Beginning with his dissent in the Slaughter-House Cases, Field melded the concepts of liberty and property—both protected by the Fourteenth Amendment—to arrive at a concept not found in the Constitution but rather upon the idea of natural rights, at least a version of natural rights expounded by laissez-faire economists. According to the author, “it was as if Field had laid a page of the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT REPORTS over SOCIAL STATICS and traced Herbert Spencer’s first principle.”

Not everyone on the High Court was buying into the liberty of contract/substantive due process clauses, most notably Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. Holmes’ dissent in Lochner v. New York was brief and pointed: “The Fourteenth Amendment does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer’s Social Statics.” In other words, there was nothing “natural” about laissez-faire. It was just an economic theory, and “a constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory,” Holmes said. “It is made for people of fundamentally different views, and the accident of our finding certain opinions natural and familiar or novel and shocking ought not to conclude our judgement upon the question whether statutes embodying them conflict with the Constitution of the United States. General principles do not decide concrete cases.”

The Lochner decision ushered in what has become known as the Lochner era—in which the Court struck down a number of state economic regulations—and ended in 1937 with West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, which overturned an earlier Lochner-era decision.

This book is well versed on the many issues surrounding Lochner v. New York, both before and after the Court's decision, as well as the disgusting state of bakeries in turn-of-the century New York, public health, sweatshops, tenement life, a variety of social movements, the early life of organized labor, and New York politics. While not long (187 pages), the book requires careful reading. Reading it is a great way to get lost some snowy weekend, as it did for me earlier this year. Five stars.
Tegore
I haven't actually compiled a list of all the nonfiction books under 300 pages that I have read, but I do not doubt that Kens's "Lochner v. New York: Economic Regulation on Trial" was by far the greatest short nonfiction book I have ever read. In fewer than 200 pages Kens discusses New York machine politics, the Supreme Court, the court appeals process, the important political, legal, and economic personalities of the Industrial Revolution, judicial and legal theories, the Fourteenth Amendment, the due process clause, economic regulation in American history, and the specifics of the case at hand with a level of detail necessary to do justice to each topic in a lucid manner. I'm not a lawyer or legal scholar, so I'm not savvy enough to comment on the accuracy of Kens's book, but I think he does a fantastic job. The Industrial Revolution and the many good and bad effects of that powerful force can never be overstated, and the Lochner case, so it seems, brought many of the powerful arguments revolving around the Industrial Revolution to a pinpoint. Thankfully, over a century after that decision was announced to the nation (and not with much excitement at the time), we have Kens to thank for understanding it all. The only complaint I have with this book is the lack of citations. There should be in-text parenthetical sourcing or footnotes. Kens notes that in an earlier, and I'm guessing more scholarly, treatment he has all the citations necessary, but that's still not acceptable for this version. Thankfully there is a fairly thorough bibliographic essay at the end.
Tegore
I haven't actually compiled a list of all the nonfiction books under 300 pages that I have read, but I do not doubt that Kens's "Lochner v. New York: Economic Regulation on Trial" was by far the greatest short nonfiction book I have ever read. In fewer than 200 pages Kens discusses New York machine politics, the Supreme Court, the court appeals process, the important political, legal, and economic personalities of the Industrial Revolution, judicial and legal theories, the Fourteenth Amendment, the due process clause, economic regulation in American history, and the specifics of the case at hand with a level of detail necessary to do justice to each topic in a lucid manner. I'm not a lawyer or legal scholar, so I'm not savvy enough to comment on the accuracy of Kens's book, but I think he does a fantastic job. The Industrial Revolution and the many good and bad effects of that powerful force can never be overstated, and the Lochner case, so it seems, brought many of the powerful arguments revolving around the Industrial Revolution to a pinpoint. Thankfully, over a century after that decision was announced to the nation (and not with much excitement at the time), we have Kens to thank for understanding it all. The only complaint I have with this book is the lack of citations. There should be in-text parenthetical sourcing or footnotes. Kens notes that in an earlier, and I'm guessing more scholarly, treatment he has all the citations necessary, but that's still not acceptable for this version. Thankfully there is a fairly thorough bibliographic essay at the end.
Ironrunner
Well researched and well written. This book in just a few pages provides a detailed backdrop for the events surrounding the court case. Reading this will make you better educated on an important issue is you are not familiar with Lochner. Paul Kens deserves compliments for the carefulness with which he tells this story.
Ironrunner
Well researched and well written. This book in just a few pages provides a detailed backdrop for the events surrounding the court case. Reading this will make you better educated on an important issue is you are not familiar with Lochner. Paul Kens deserves compliments for the carefulness with which he tells this story.
Darksinger
It is a good overview of the case and the historical context of the case. However, the author presents a very biased narrative and his disdain for the pro-Lochner side is oozing off every page.
Darksinger
It is a good overview of the case and the historical context of the case. However, the author presents a very biased narrative and his disdain for the pro-Lochner side is oozing off every page.