The shift in the Supreme Court's view of substantive due process between Lochner v. New York (1905) and West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937) reflected changes in society, economic conditions, and philosophies. Lochner v. New York occurred during a more "hands off" time regarding economic regulation. Lochner v. New York was a result of an appeal to a New York law that limited bakery employees' hours to 60 a week, the appeal argument was based on the belief that the Fourteenth Amendment should have been interpreted to contain the freedom to contract among the rights encompassed by substantive due process. The Supreme Court struck down the New York Law. The majority opinion argued in favor of due process to protect the freedom of contract between
…show more content…
He argued that the due process clause should not be used to strike down economic regulations unless they were extreme and unreasonable. Additionally, he believed the majority based their decision on personal economic opinions instead of constitutional interpretation. This is another key example of how every detail of a case affects several parts, like a domino effect. Some argue that justices should interpret the Constitution with original meaning, while others argue that the Constitution should reflect changing societal norms and conditions. I believe the true intent of the Constitution protects the American citizen, but I also realize it is over 200 years old, making some alterations essential to promote modern-day needs. At barely thirty years apart, these cases even reflect how different times come into play. I believe as Supreme Court justices hold the power of establishing great, life-changing justice, it should be mainly based upon what was set forward for us originally, while also considering significant factors. I believe the Great Depression was a significant factor that caused a drastic switch in how the cases should be viewed and
He argued that the due process clause should not be used to strike down economic regulations unless they were extreme and unreasonable. Additionally, he believed the majority based their decision on personal economic opinions instead of constitutional interpretation. This is another key example of how every detail of a case affects several parts, like a domino effect. Some argue that justices should interpret the Constitution with original meaning, while others argue that the Constitution should reflect changing societal norms and conditions. I believe the true intent of the Constitution protects the American citizen, but I also realize it is over 200 years old, making some alterations essential to promote modern-day needs. At barely thirty years apart, these cases even reflect how different times come into play. I believe as Supreme Court justices hold the power of establishing great, life-changing justice, it should be mainly based upon what was set forward for us originally, while also considering significant factors. I believe the Great Depression was a significant factor that caused a drastic switch in how the cases should be viewed and