Once upon a time in America the
bankers and Wall Street tycoons got so greedy that they wrecked the
economy. Their greed precipitated a time
called the Great Depression. In response
to hunger, homelessness, and hopelessness America elected a Democratic President
named Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Prior to Roosevelt the Supreme
Court followed a judicial theory called Substantive Due Process, or in terms of
the Lochner Era economic due process.
During this time, the Lochner Era, courts struck down laws regulating
the workplace as violating the substance of the Contract Clause.
In Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165
U.S. 578 (1897), which is considered the foundation of the Lochner Era cases,
the Supreme Court ruled that a state may not legislate in a manner designed to deprive
its citizens of the rights guaranteed under the Due Process Clause of the 14th
Amendment. The Louisiana Constitution
prohibited foreign corporations from doing business in Louisiana, unless they
had a place of business and an authorized agent within the state. A New York Company was selling policies in
Louisiana. Allgeyer bought a policy to cover goods being shipped by sea from
the port of New Orleans. He was
convicted in the state court. In this
case the Supreme Court chose to address the problem by ruling on behalf of the
citizen, not the state or the corporation.
Hence, Allgeyer, while
providing a basis for Lochnerism is distinguishable from that case.
Lochner v. New York, 198
U.S. 45 (1905) is about a state law passed by New York which said bakery
employees could not work more than 60 hours a week or 10 hours a day. The state justified this law, as a valid
exercise of the Police Powers, because it protects the health of the workers. The Police
Powers stem from the Tenth Amendment and is used by the states and local
governments to preserve and protect the safety, health, welfare, and morals of
the community.
The Supreme Court sided with the
bakery owner and said the law violated the bakery owner's right to contract
protected by the 14th Amendment. The
Court held that the law was not justified on the basis of protecting the health
of the employees.
Adair v. United States, 208
U.S. 161 (1907) is a case in which the Court struck down a federal law
prohibiting Yellow Dog Contracts. These contracts were used by railroad
companies and required, as a condition of employment, that the prospective
employee agree not to join a union. Here
the Court sided with the railroads saying the law was an "invasion of
personal liberty, as well as of the right of property, guaranteed by the Fifth
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and is therefore
unenforceable as repugnant to the declaration of that amendment that no person
shall be deprived of liberty or property without due process of law."
Another Yellow Dog Contract case, this time striking down a state law, came
from the Sunflower State. In Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 (1915) Kansas found the Yellow Dog Contracts to
be coercive. The Supreme Court did not
agree. The Court said, in part, "s
The voluntary
adoption of a rule not to work on nonunion made material and its enforcement
differs only in degree from such voluntary rule and its enforcement in a
particular case. Such a determination also differs entirely from a general
boycott of a particular dealer or manufacturer with a malicious intent and
purpose to destroy the good will or business of such dealer or manufacturer."
Child Labor Laws were again ruled unconstitutional in Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U.S. 20 (1922). At issue was the 1919 Child Labor Tax Law. The law, in pertinent part said, SEC.
1200. That every person (other than a bona fide boys' or girls' canning club
recognized by the Agricultural Department of a State and of the United States)
operating (a) any mine or quarry situated in the United States in which
children under the age of sixteen years have been employed or permitted to work
during any portion of the taxable year; or (b) any mill, cannery, workshop,
factory, or manufacturing establishment situated in the United States in which children under the age of fourteen years
have been employed or permitted to work, or children between the ages of fourteen and sixteen have been employed or
permitted to work more than eight hours in any day or more than six days in any
week, or after the hour of seven o'clock post meridian, or before the hour of
six o'clock ante meridian, during any portion of the taxable year, shall
pay for each taxable year, in addition to all other taxes imposed by law, an
excise tax equivalent to 10 percentum of the entire net profits received or
accrued for such year from the sale or disposition of the product of such mine,
quarry, mill, cannery, workshop, factory, or manufacturing establishment."
Harkening back to their ruling in
Regulation
and control of agricultural production are beyond the powers delegated to the
Federal Government." Can you imagine a world in which the USDA did not
protect the food supply?
Minimum Wage was a main issue with the Bituminous Coal Conservation
Act, also known as the 1935 Guffey Coal Act.
Congress regulated prices,
minimum wages, maximum hours, and "fair practices" of the coal
industry. The Court ruled the mining of coal was not commerce and the
establishment of minimum wages was a price fixing scheme.
The switch in time that saved nine refers to a Court-packing plan
by President Roosevelt which would have added sufficient seats to the Supreme
Court to change the jurisprudence of the Court.
It happened when Associate Justice Owen J. Roberts moved away from
Substantive Due Process in West Coast
Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S.
379 (1937), a minimum wage case, which
excluded men.
From the syllabus:
1. Deprivation of liberty to
contract is forbidden by the Constitution if without due process of law, but
restraint or regulation of this liberty, if reasonable in relation to its
subject and if adopted for the protection of the community against evils
menacing the health, safety, morals and welfare of the people, is due process.
2. In dealing with the relation
of employer and employed, the legislature has necessarily a wide field of
discretion in order that there may be suitable protection of health and safety,
and that peace and good order may be promoted through regulations designed to
insure wholesome conditions of work and freedom from oppression.
3. The State has a special
interest in protecting women against employment contracts which through poor
working conditions, long hours or scant wages may leave them inadequately
supported and undermine their health; because:
(1) The health of women is
peculiarly related to the vigor of the race;
(2) Women are especially liable
to be overreached and exploited by unscrupulous employers; and
(3) This exploitation and denial
of a living wage is not only detrimental to the health and wellbeing of the
women affected, but casts a direct burden for their support upon the community.
Pp. 394, 398, et seq.
4. Judicial notice is taken of
the unparalleled demands for relief which arose during the recent period of
depression and still continue to an alarming extent despite the degree of
economic recovery which has been achieved.
5. A state law for the setting of
minimum wages for women is not an arbitrary discrimination because it does not
extend to men.
6. A statute of the State of
Washington (Laws, 1913, c. 174; Remington's Rev.Stats., 1932, § 7623 et seq.)
providing for the establishment of minimum wages for women, held valid. Adkins
v. Children's Hospital, 261 U.S. 525,
is overruled; Morehead v. New York ex rel. Tipaldo, 298 U.S. 587,
distinguished. P. 400.
And why you ask is this important
now?
It is because Senator Tom Coburn
has dropped his “Enumerated Powers Act of 2013,” into the hopper. This bill is cosponsored by “Senators Ayotte
(R-NH), Barrasso (R-WY), Blunt (R-MO), Boozman (R-AR), Burr (R-NC), Chambliss
(R-GA), Coats (R-IN), Corker (R-TN), Cornyn (R-TX), Crapo (R-ID), Cruz (R-TX),
Enzi (R-WY), Fischer (R-NE), Flake (R-AZ), Graham (R-SC), Grassley (R-IA),
Hatch (R-UT), Heller (R-NV), Inhofe (R-OK), Isakson (R-GA), Johnson (R-WI), Lee
(R-UT), McCain (R-AZ), McConnell (R-KY), Moran (R-KS), Risch (R-ID), Roberts
(R-KS), Rubio (R-FL), Scott (R-SC), Sessions (R-AL), Thune (R-SD), Toomey
(R-PA), Vitter (R-LA), and Wicker (R-MS).”
Think Progress has an excellent
article which blueprints the Grand Old Plan to return to the days of Substantive Due
Process. They write: "To translate
this language a bit, in the late 19th Century, the Supreme Court embraced an
unusually narrow interpretation of the Constitution’s provision enabling
Congress to 'regulate commerce . . . among the several states.' Under this
narrow reading, which lasted less than half a century, the justices said that
they would only permit federal laws that regulated the transport of goods for
sale or a sale itself. Manufacturing, mining, production and agriculture were
all held to be beyond federal regulation. This theory was the basis for several
decisions striking down basic labor protections, including a 1918 decision
declaring a child labor law unconstitutional.
The article is at http://tinyurl.com/mbbjkwl.