The Contract Clause And Supreme Court Decisionmaking: A Bicentennial Retrospective
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15763/issn.2374-7781.1988.9.0.41-63Abstract
It is fitting that during the period of the bicentennial celebration of the U.S. Constitution public law scholars both reexamine constitutional history and engage in an introspective examination of the subfield within political science. There is dissatisfaction with the dominant approaches of political jurisprudence and judicial behavioralism (Stumpf 1983). Public choice theory, critical legal theory, and some normative models are vying for paradigmatic hegemony. Yet important figures of political jurisprudence and judicial behavioralism such as Pritchett, Murphy, Tanenhaus, Schubert, Schmidhauser, Nagel, Shapiro, and Ulmer, among others, have contributed greatly in explaining judicial decisionmaking in realistic political and human terms. It is a mistake to discard the advances of the last three or four decades in favor of approaches lacking explanatory power. Science, not rhetoric, must remain our epistemological foundation.References
Beard, Charles A. 1913. An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. New York: The Macmillan Company.
Carp, Robert A. and Rowland, C.K. 1983. Policy-Making and Politics in the Federal District Courts. Knoxville, TN: The University of Tennessee Press.
Clark, Jeffery L. 1978. The Contract Clause Reemerges: New Attitude Toward Judicial Scrutiny of Economic Legislation. Southern Illinois University Law Journal 1978: 258-277.
Ducat, Craig R. 1978. Modes of Constitutional Interpretation. St. Paul: West Publishing Co.
Dudley, Robert L. and Ducat, Craig R. 1986. The Burger Court and Economic Liberalism. The Western Political Quarterly 39:1236-249. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/448296
Farrand, Max, ed. 1937. The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787. 4 vols. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Hensely, Thomas R. 1985. A Critique of Personal Attribute Theory: An Analysis of C. Neal Tate's Personal Attribute Models of the Voting Behavior of U.S. Supreme Court Justices or 'It May Have Something to Do With My Childhood'. Chicago, IL: Paper Prepared for Delivery at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, April 18-20, 1985.
Hurst, Thomas R. 1978. Municipal Bonds and the Contract Clause: Looking Beyond the United States Trust Company v. New Jersey. Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 5: 25-59.
Johnston, Richard E. and Thompson, John T. 1980. The Burger Court and Federalism: A Revolution in 1976? The Western Political Quarterly 33: 197-216.
Magrath, Peter c. 1966. Yazoo: The Case of Fletcher v. Peck. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.
March, James G., and Johan P. Olsen. 1984. The New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life. American Political Science Review 78: 734-49.
Mctamaney, Robert A. 1977. United States Trust Company of New York v. New Jersey: The Contract Clause in a Complex Society. Fordham Law Review 46: 1-56.
Melone, Albert P. 1977/1979. Lawyers, Public Policy and Interest Group Politics. Washington, D.C.: University Press of America.
Melone, Albert P. 1983. The American Bar Association, Antitrust Legislation and Interest Group Coalitions. Policy Studies Journal 1:684-698. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1983.tb00571.x
Melone, Albert P. 1987. Bar Associations in. The Encyclopedia of the American Judicial System, ed. Robert Janosik. New York: Scribner's.
Melone, Albert P. 1988. Mendelson v. Wright: Understanding the Contract Clause. The Western Political Quarterly 41: 791-199.
Melone, Albert P. and George Mace, 1988. Judicial Review and American Democracy. Ames: Iowa State Univerwity Press.
Mendelson, Wallace. 1985. B.F. Wright on the Contract Clause: A Progressive Misreading of the Marshall-Taney Era. The Western Political Quarterly 38: 262-275.
Mendelson, Wallace, 1988. Bootstraps v. Evidence: A Response to Professor Melone The Western Political Quarterly 41: 801-805.
Murphy, Walter F. and Tanenhaus, Joseph. 1972. The Study of Public Law. New York: Random House.
Pritchett, C. Herman. 1968. The American Constitution, 2 ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Pritchett, C. Herman. 1969. The Development of Judicial Research. In Frontiers of Judicial Research, eds. Joel Grossman and Joseph Tanenhaus. New York: John Wiley.
Rodell, Fred. 1955. Nine Men: A Political History of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1790 to 1955. New York: Vintage Books.
Schmidhauser, John R. 1958. The Supreme Court as Final Arbiter in Federal-State Relations, 1789-1957. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press.
Schwartz, Bernard. 1980. Old Wine in Old Bottles? The Renaissance of the Contract Clause. In The Supreme Court Review. Philip B. Kurland and Gerhard Casper, eds. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 95-121.
Shapiro, Martin M. 1981. Courts: A Comparative and Political Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Skopol, Theda. 1984. Vision and Method in Historical Sociology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, Rogers M. 1988. Political Jurisprudence, The 'New Institutionalism,' and the Future of Public Law. American Political Science Review 82: 89-108.
Stumpf, Harry P., Martin Shapiro, David J. Danelski, Austin Sarat, and David M.
O'Brien. 1983. Whither Political Jurisprudence: A Symposium. The Western Political Quarterly. 36: 533-569.
Tate, C. Neal. 1981. Personal Attribute Models of Voting Behavior of U.S. Supreme Court Justices: Liberalism in Civil Liberties and Economics Decisions, 1946- 1978. American Political Science Review 75:355 367.
Ulmer, S. Sidney. 1973. Social Background as an Indicator of the Votes of Supreme Court Justices in Criminal Cases: 1947-1956 Terms. American Journal of Political Science 17:622-630. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2110748
Ulmer, S. Sidney. 1986. Are Social Background Models Time-Bound? American Political Science Review 80: 951-961.
Wood, Gordon S. 1969. The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.
Wright, Benjamin F., Jr. 1938. The Contract Clause of the Constitution. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with American Review of Politics agree to the following terms:
The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:
Attribution: other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
Non-Commercial: the materials may not be used for commercial purposes;
Share Alike: If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.
with the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.
The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a pre-publication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access). Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
The Author represents and warrants that:
the Work is the Author’s original work;
the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
the Work has not previously been published;
the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.