Huh? The court that opined that black had no rights that whites were bound to respect was NOT reactionary?!?!? The supreme court was anything but limited under John Marshall, who turned it into an all-important Federalist redoubt following Jefferson's "Revolution of 1800." The post-Civil War court represented a return what it had been under Roger Taney, an Andrew Jackson- appointee and author of the infamous Dred Scott decision, in the 1830s, 40s, and 50s. As for checks and balances and separation of powers, these doctrines were vitally important throughout the antebellum period.
Dan Lazare
In a message dated 98-06-15 08:15:27 EDT, you write:
<<
Therea re some inaccuracies here. Before the civil war, the US was an
agrarian republic, not a capitalistr state dominated by corporations. The
Supreme Court before the war was a far more limited institution, having
used uits power to invalidate a federal law exactly twice in the
anre-bellum period (Marbury and Dred Scott). In that period the Court was
hardly a recationary institution as it became under the Lochner-era
leadership, with aggressive use of the 14th Amendment to attack
progressive-era state legislation.
Checks and abalances and seperation of powers are doctrines that apply
within the relation of the branches of the federal government. Far from
being a natioanl rerligion I do not think they were particularly important
until the 'teens, when the rise of the administrative state began to raise
questions that involved them. And they are not reactioonary doctrines, or
even particularly conservative.
--jks
>>