Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/7

Click to flip

7 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Additions to Con Law 7
What did this case do and what did it say about Liberty? Lochner (“law: bakers couldn’t work more than 10hrs a day; freedom of K; infringe economic liberty as part of due process”) Facts: 1. Owner of bakery charged with violating state law restricting number of hours bakery employees could work challenged law on due process grounds.
2. Liberty would include a number of economic freedoms/rights. 3. The State may infringe this liberty ONLY to protect the health, safety, and morals of the population.
What did Muller (case about a cap on the hours that women can work because they are so weak) say about economic substantive due process and lochnerism?
a. See Muller (Brandeis brief) i. Such economic substantive due process rights are not absolute ii. Freedom to K may be restricted when it is the public’s interest to protect a woman’s “weak physique” for the well being of society by looking after their health.
What did Weaver v. Palmer (case about that filler called Shoddy) say about economic substantive due process and lochnerism?
b. See Weaver v. Palmer i. The Court determined, contrary to the state’s contention of protecting the health of its population, that if there are ALTERNATIVE MEANS to accomplish the same goal of protecting health of public—by sterilizing the shoddy, then the law could not be essential.
What did Nebbia v. New York (case about state law regulating milk safety) say about economic substantive due process and lochnerism?
c. Nebbia v. New York i. The Court UPHELD a state law regulating the safety of milk in the public interest as fundamental to promote the general welfare.
d. Even if a state is trying to protect the public in these ways, it has to be ______—i.e., _______. Not just _____ or ______.
d. Even if a state is trying to protect the public in these ways, it has to be necessary—i.e., ESSENTIAL. Not just convenient or reasonable.
How did the court in the Lochner era show deference to the states?
4. Finally, Court during this era showed little deference to the states. a. Even if the state says the “magic words” or does its homework, the Court will question it; it is up to the Court to decide. i. Raiche: unlike in this era, Stevens noted the deference of the Court by stating it was up to Congress to make a judgment.