Government in the United States_, 70 (1908).
[56] _See_ E.S. Corwin. _Total War and the Constitution_, 35-77 (1947).
[57] 343 U.S. 579, 662.
[58] _See_ E.S. Corwin. _Liberty Against Government_, Chaps. III, IV
(1948).
[59] "... the supreme power cannot take from any man any part of his
property without his consent". _Second Treatise_, Sec. 138.
[60] Van Home's Lessee _v._ Dorrance, 2 Dall. 304, 310 (1795).
[61] Calder _v._ Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 388-389 (1798). _See also_ Loan
Association _v._ Topeka, 20 Wall. 655 (1875).
[62] Bank of Columbia _v._ Okely, 4 Wheat. 235, 244.
[63] Scott _v._ Sandford, 19 How. 393, 450 (1857).
[64] 13 N.Y. 378 (1856).
[65] Ibid. 390-392. The absolute veto of the Court of Appeals in the
Wynehamer case was replaced by the Supreme Court, under the due process
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, by a more flexible doctrine, which
left it open to the State to show reasonable justification for that type
of legislation in terms of acknowledged ends of the Police Power,
namely, the promotion of the public health, safety and morals. _See_
Mugler _v._ Kansas, 123 U.S. 623 (1887); and for a transitional case,
Bartemeyer _v._ Iowa, 18 Wall. 129 (1874).
[66] The Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 78-82 (1873). The opinion
of the Court was focused principally on the privileges and immunities
clause, and the narrow construction given it at this time is still the
law of the Court. But Justices Bradley and Swayne pointed out the
potentialities of the due process of law clause, and the former's
interpretation of it may be fairly regarded as the first step toward the
translation by the Court of "liberty" as Freedom on Contract.
[67] 94 U.S. 113 (1876).
[68] Benjamin R. Twiss, _Lawyers and the Constitution, How Laissez Faire
Came to the Supreme Court_, 141-173 (1942).
[69] _See_ especially Lochner _v._ New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905); and
Adkins _v._ Children's Hospital, 261 U.S. 525 (1923).
[70] 169 U.S. 466; ibid. 366.
[71] _See_ Charles W. Collins, _The Fourteenth Amendment and the
States_, 188-206 (1912).
[72] Labor Board _v._ Jones & Laughlin, 301 U.S. 1, 33-34; West Coast
Hotel Co. _v._ Parrish, 300 U.S. 379, 391-392.
[73] 268 U.S. 652, 666; _cf._ Prudential Ins. Co. _v._ Cheek, 259 U.S.
530, 543 (1922).
[74] The subject can be pursued in detail in connection with Amendment
I, pp. 769-810.
[75] These cases are treated in the text, _see_ Table of Cases.
[76] _Se
|