Chat with AIExam 9: Property Rights and the Development of Due Process
In 1893, Justice David J. Brewer and Professor James Bradley Thayer spoke out on judicial activism versus judicial restraint. What did they recommend concerning the Court's role?
(33) 
Answered by Examlex AI CopilotIn 1893, both Justice David J. Brewer and Professor James Bradley Thayer expressed their views on the role of the judiciary, particularly in the context of the debate between judicial activism and judicial restraint.
Justice David J. Brewer, who served on the United States Supreme Court from 1889 to 1910, was known for his belief in a more restrained role for the judiciary. He emphasized the importance of the courts respecting the decisions and the authority of the other branches of government, particularly the legislative branch. Brewer believed that the courts should not overstep their bounds or become too involved in policy-making, which he saw as the proper domain of the elected branches of government.
Professor James Bradley Thayer, a prominent legal scholar of the time, also argued for judicial restraint. In his influential 1893 article "The Origin and Scope of the American Doctrine of Constitutional Law," Thayer articulated the view that courts should defer to the legislature and should only strike down legislation when it violates the Constitution in a clear and unmistakable manner. He posited that if there was any reasonable doubt about the constitutionality of a law, the courts should uphold it and allow the political process to correct any issues.
Thayer's perspective was that the judiciary should not substitute its own judgment for that of the legislature unless there was a clear conflict with the Constitution. This principle, known as the "clear mistake rule," suggests that judicial intervention should be minimal and that the courts should exercise restraint, upholding laws unless they are clearly unconstitutional.
In summary, both Justice Brewer and Professor Thayer recommended a restrained role for the Supreme Court and the judiciary at large, advocating for deference to the legislative and executive branches unless there was a clear and undeniable conflict with the Constitution. Their views contributed to the ongoing debate about the proper balance of power between the branches of government and the extent to which the judiciary should involve itself in matters of policy and lawmaking.
How does Footnote Four purport to offer a solution to the counter-majoritarian difficulty?
(23) Answered by Examlex AI CopilotFootnote Four, a famous passage in the United States Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Carolene Products Co. (1938), purports to offer a solution to the counter-majoritarian difficulty by suggesting that certain rights and liberties may require heightened judicial protection in order to prevent the tyranny of the majority. The counter-majoritarian difficulty refers to the tension between the principle of majority rule and the protection of individual rights, which can sometimes lead to the judiciary making decisions that go against the will of the majority.
Footnote Four suggests that certain rights, such as those protected by the Bill of Rights or those that are essential to a functioning democracy, may require stricter judicial scrutiny in order to prevent the majority from infringing upon them. This approach allows the judiciary to act as a check on the power of the majority and protect individual rights from being trampled upon.
In essence, Footnote Four offers a solution to the counter-majoritarian difficulty by advocating for a more active and protective role for the judiciary in safeguarding certain fundamental rights and liberties from the potential tyranny of the majority.
What are the ideas contained in Justice Stone's Footnote Four in Carolene Products?
(40) Answered by Examlex AI CopilotIn Justice Stone's Footnote Four in Carolene Products, the ideas contained include the recognition of the need for judicial scrutiny of laws that may infringe upon fundamental rights or discriminate against discrete and insular minorities. This footnote laid the groundwork for the development of the "strict scrutiny" standard in constitutional law, which requires the government to demonstrate a compelling interest in order to justify laws that implicate fundamental rights or discriminate against certain groups. It also acknowledged the limitations of democratic processes in protecting these rights and minorities, and the role of the judiciary in upholding the principles of the Constitution. Overall, Footnote Four in Carolene Products represents a significant contribution to the understanding of constitutional law and the protection of individual rights.
The majority opinion in Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell was written by _____.
(42) Use of the due process clause to protect property may have represented an effort to amend the Constitution judicially, to add to the document protections that the framers failed to include. Is there evidence to support this statement in the Slaughterhouse Cases, Munn v. Illinois, and Lochner v. New York?
(33) Based on his opinion for the Court in Ferguson v. Skrupa (1963), would Justice Black have looked favorably or unfavorably on Chief Justice Waite's majority opinion in Munn v. Illinois (1877)? Why? Make sure your essay demonstrates an understanding of both cases.
(34) According to Justice Miller's (majority) opinion for the Court in the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873), what protections did the Fourteenth Amendment provide against abuses of individual rights by the states? Was Miller's message one that the New Orleans area butchers wanted to hear? Explain.
(30) According to Justice Samuel Miller's opinion for the Court in the Slaughterhouse Cases, why did the New Orleans butchers fail to make a credible claim under the recently ratified Fourteenth Amendment?
(25) What two changes in the Court's role are suggested by the decision in the Carolene Products case?
(38) Discuss briefly the constitutional and economic significance of Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819).
(33) In his speech in 1893, Justice David J. Brewer advocated ____.
(33) In _____, the Supreme Court held that businesses "clothed in the public interest" could be regulated by the states.
(37) In what way is Footnote Four an attempt to justify the use of judicial review? Does it help to resolve what Alexander Bickel called the countermajoritarian difficulty? Explain.
(35) The holding in Calder v. Bull stated that the Constitution's ban on ex post facto laws was limited to certain kinds of retroactive _____.
(32) The opinion of the Court in Charles River Bridge Co. v. Warren Bridge Co. was written by ____.
(22) Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell involved a challenge to statute in ___.
(27) What is there about the Court's decision and majority opinion in Kelo v. City of New London that has provoked such a sharp negative reaction in many states?
(36) Opinions filed in Lochner v. New York reveal different ways of judging state laws claimed to be in violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
a. What approach is illustrated by Justice Peckham's opinion for the majority? Explain.
b. What approach is illustrated by the dissents of Justices Holmes and Harlan? Explain
(33) For health reasons New York City has banned the serving of food containing high concentrations of corn-based sweeteners in restaurants within the city. Suppose that a group of restaurant owners files suit claiming that the new ordinance violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. How would a U.S. Supreme Court justice approach such a case from the perspective of:
a. Chief Justice Morrison Waite's opinion of the Court in Munn v. Illinois;
b. Justice Stephen Field's dissent in Munn v. Illinois;
c. Professor James Bradley Thayer's 1893 Harvard Law Review article;
d. Justice Rufus Peckham's opinion of the Court in Lochner v. New York
e. Justice Hugo Black's opinion of the Court in Ferguson v. Skrupa.
(41) 
Filters
- Essay(0)
- Multiple Choice(0)
- Short Answer(0)
- True False(0)
- Matching(0)