Constitutional Longevity. Was Religiosity...

Dhlazare at aol.com Dhlazare at aol.com
Mon Jun 15 09:49:23 PDT 1998


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

>>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list