Revision of Progressive Era History Continues

Reviewing Joseph W. Postell and Jonathan O’Neill, Editors, Toward an American Conservatism: Constitutional Conservatism during the Progressive Era, and David M. Rabban, Law’s History: American Legal Thought and the Transatlantic Turn to History

The United States Supreme Court and Business Elites: Gilded Age Origins of Modern American Liberalism

One issue that permeated Gilded Age politics asks to what extent the United States Constitution places a limit on government regulation of business. Most of today’s scholars treat it as a matter of balancing economic liberty or property rights against government power, and maintain that this balancing formula represents the predominant tradition in constitutional history, dating at least as far back as the Jacksonian era. On the contrary this paper shows that prior to the late 1880s the paradigm for determining the constitution’s limits on government regulation of business was actually quite different. The Supreme Court in its first century treated business regulation as a matter of balancing entrepreneurial liberty against the rights of the community. Furthermore, it consistently held that, because state economic regulations were an expression of popular sovereignty and rights of the community, they should be presumed to be valid. Only at the very end of the nineteenth century did this interpretation give way to a new one, raising entrepreneurial liberty to preferred status under the Constitution. This was the result of the persistent efforts of lawyers for the corporate elite, who aimed to produced three changes: a tendency to equate regulation of business with confiscation of property; a trend toward expanding the constitutional rights afforded to corporations; and a reversal of the rule that economic regulation should be presumed valid. But at least until the death of Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite in 1888, the Supreme Court would rather steadfastly cling to the traditional doctrine than promote this new interpretation.Un des sujets récurrents de la politique américaine pendant l’Âge doré portait sur les limites à la régulation de l’économie par l’État. Pour les plupart des historiens et juristes aujourd’hui, le problème est de trouver le point d’équilibre entre liberté économique et droit de propriété d’une part, et la puissance de l’État d’autre part. Pour eux, cette approche du problème est la tradition dominante en histoire constitutionnelle, datant de l’ère jacksonienne au moins. Cet article montre au contraire qu’avant la fin des années 1880, le paradigme pour déterminer les limites constitutionnelles à la régulation du monde économique par la puissance publique était fort différent. Dans son premier siècle, la Cour suprême pensait cette régulation comme équilibre entre droits entrepreneuriaux et droits de la communauté. Bien plus, elle tenait pour a priori légitime toute régulation économique par les États fédérés parce qu’elle exprimait la souveraineté populaire. Ce n’est qu’à la toute fin du XIXe siècle que cette interprétation traditionnelle cède le pas à une nouvelle, qui donne de la liberté d’entreprendre un statut constitutionnel privilégié. Elle est le résultat d’efforts persistants d’avocats d’affaires, travaillant pour les grandes entreprises, qui ont travaillé à trois changements : faire de la régulation économique un équivalent d’une confiscation de propriété ; étendre les protections constitutionnelles des entreprises ; et renverser la présomption de légitimité de la régulation. Mais, au moins jusqu’à la mort de son président Morrison R. Waite en 1888, la Cour suprême a préféré réaffirmer avec constance la doctrine traditionnelle plutôt que promouvoir cette nouvelle approche

Revision of Progressive Era History Continues

Reviewing Joseph W. Postell and Jonathan O’Neill, Editors, Toward an American Conservatism: Constitutional Conservatism during the Progressive Era, and David M. Rabban, Law’s History: American Legal Thought and the Transatlantic Turn to History

The United States Supreme Court and Business Elites: Gilded Age Origins of Modern American Liberalism

One issue that permeated Gilded Age politics asks to what extent the United States Constitution places a limit on government regulation of business. Most of today’s scholars treat it as a matter of balancing economic liberty or property rights against government power, and maintain that this balancing formula represents the predominant tradition in constitutional history, dating at least as far back as the Jacksonian era. On the contrary this paper shows that prior to the late 1880s the paradigm for determining the constitution’s limits on government regulation of business was actually quite different. The Supreme Court in its first century treated business regulation as a matter of balancing entrepreneurial liberty against the rights of the community. Furthermore, it consistently held that, because state economic regulations were an expression of popular sovereignty and rights of the community, they should be presumed to be valid. Only at the very end of the nineteenth century did this interpretation give way to a new one, raising entrepreneurial liberty to preferred status under the Constitution. This was the result of the persistent efforts of lawyers for the corporate elite, who aimed to produced three changes: a tendency to equate regulation of business with confiscation of property; a trend toward expanding the constitutional rights afforded to corporations; and a reversal of the rule that economic regulation should be presumed valid. But at least until the death of Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite in 1888, the Supreme Court would rather steadfastly cling to the traditional doctrine than promote this new interpretation.Un des sujets récurrents de la politique américaine pendant l’Âge doré portait sur les limites à la régulation de l’économie par l’État. Pour les plupart des historiens et juristes aujourd’hui, le problème est de trouver le point d’équilibre entre liberté économique et droit de propriété d’une part, et la puissance de l’État d’autre part. Pour eux, cette approche du problème est la tradition dominante en histoire constitutionnelle, datant de l’ère jacksonienne au moins. Cet article montre au contraire qu’avant la fin des années 1880, le paradigme pour déterminer les limites constitutionnelles à la régulation du monde économique par la puissance publique était fort différent. Dans son premier siècle, la Cour suprême pensait cette régulation comme équilibre entre droits entrepreneuriaux et droits de la communauté. Bien plus, elle tenait pour a priori légitime toute régulation économique par les États fédérés parce qu’elle exprimait la souveraineté populaire. Ce n’est qu’à la toute fin du XIXe siècle que cette interprétation traditionnelle cède le pas à une nouvelle, qui donne de la liberté d’entreprendre un statut constitutionnel privilégié. Elle est le résultat d’efforts persistants d’avocats d’affaires, travaillant pour les grandes entreprises, qui ont travaillé à trois changements : faire de la régulation économique un équivalent d’une confiscation de propriété ; étendre les protections constitutionnelles des entreprises ; et renverser la présomption de légitimité de la régulation. Mais, au moins jusqu’à la mort de son président Morrison R. Waite en 1888, la Cour suprême a préféré réaffirmer avec constance la doctrine traditionnelle plutôt que promouvoir cette nouvelle approche

Property, Liberty, and the Rights of the Community: Lessons from \u3cem\u3eMunn v. Illinois\u3c/em\u3e

When considering the extent to which the United States Constitution places a limit on government regulation of business, today\u27s historians and constitutional theorists treat the question as a matter of balancing economic liberty or property rights against government power. Moreover, modem scholars commonly maintain that this balancing formula represents the predominant tradition in constitutional history. Tracing it back to the tenants of Jacksonian democracy that emphasized distrust of government, they imply that constitutional history has developed as a straight line: always with an emphasis on individual liberty and always with a presumption that entrepreneurial liberty should be favored over governments\u27 power to regulate. This paper will use the 1877 case Munn v. Illinois to demonstrate that prior to the late 1880s the paradigm for determining the constitution\u27s limits on government regulation of business was actually quite different. There is no doubt that the Court has always emphatically recognized the importance of property rights. Nevertheless, during the first century under the Constitution, it treated business regulation as a matter of balancing entrepreneurial liberty against the rights of the community. Furthermore, it consistently held that, because state economic regulations were an expression of popular sovereignty and rights of the community, they should be presumed to be valid. Munn is significant because in the conventional narrative it is portrayed as a steppingstone in the straight line evolution of constitutional doctrine that emphasizes individual liberty. A closer look at the case and the events surrounding it will demonstrate, however, that the majority in Munn actually based its opinion on the traditional emphasis on rights of the community. It will further demonstrate that for more than a decade after the opinion the Supreme Court steadfastly clung to that traditional view. Even under persistent pressure to change

Property, Liberty, and the Rights of the Community: Lessons from \u3cem\u3eMunn v. Illinois\u3c/em\u3e

When considering the extent to which the United States Constitution places a limit on government regulation of business, today\u27s historians and constitutional theorists treat the question as a matter of balancing economic liberty or property rights against government power. Moreover, modem scholars commonly maintain that this balancing formula represents the predominant tradition in constitutional history. Tracing it back to the tenants of Jacksonian democracy that emphasized distrust of government, they imply that constitutional history has developed as a straight line: always with an emphasis on individual liberty and always with a presumption that entrepreneurial liberty should be favored over governments\u27 power to regulate. This paper will use the 1877 case Munn v. Illinois to demonstrate that prior to the late 1880s the paradigm for determining the constitution\u27s limits on government regulation of business was actually quite different. There is no doubt that the Court has always emphatically recognized the importance of property rights. Nevertheless, during the first century under the Constitution, it treated business regulation as a matter of balancing entrepreneurial liberty against the rights of the community. Furthermore, it consistently held that, because state economic regulations were an expression of popular sovereignty and rights of the community, they should be presumed to be valid. Munn is significant because in the conventional narrative it is portrayed as a steppingstone in the straight line evolution of constitutional doctrine that emphasizes individual liberty. A closer look at the case and the events surrounding it will demonstrate, however, that the majority in Munn actually based its opinion on the traditional emphasis on rights of the community. It will further demonstrate that for more than a decade after the opinion the Supreme Court steadfastly clung to that traditional view. Even under persistent pressure to change