review How Progressives Rewrote the Constitution Ø eBook or Kindle ePUB



10 thoughts on “How Progressives Rewrote the Constitution

  1. says:

    This elegant little volume is the result of a lecture given to the Cato Institute in 2004 by Richard Epstein of which this is an extended versionProfessor Epstein’s lecture was on the Progressive movement on which “I had long been critical on constitutional economic and philosophical grounds”This little gem offers his defense of the earlier opinions on many controversial topics in which “the Old Court” supported economic liberties and held a limited view regarding federal power Given the proud claim of many politicians today that they are Progressives this is an extraordinarily useful book to weigh their actual beliefs which attempt to destroy opposing views


  2. says:

    my report


  3. says:

    A succinct and well done explanation of the shift in constitutional thought from the 1910s to the 1930s Although presented as a brief of sorts for the old view of the Constitution Epstein does not engage in screeds or purist laissez faire doctrine In fact Epstein is at pains to point out how much regulation could be done under the old view of the constitution He showcases the very broad mercantilist views behind the clause on interstate and foreign commerce and celebrates Chief Justice John Marshall's very expansive reading of that clause From Gibbons v Ogden allowing a federal law on shipping licensing to overcome a local monopoly by Fulton to Brown v Maryland disallowing a state tax on importers Marshall realized that the Constitution intended the powers of the federal government over commerce to be broad and comprehensive and Epstein realizes that in practice this could lead to either laissez faire or regulated ends but he appreciates the distinctions Marshall makes Epstein even condemns such narrow readings of the commerce power as the EC Knight case 1895 which prevented federal antitrust laws from reaching a sugar manufacturing monopoly Still Epstein condemns such later decisions as Wickard v Filburn allowing limitations of agricultural production and Wrightwood dairy mandating milk cartels because they used the Commerce power to do the one thing it was not supposed to do and that is prevent competition Similarly he condemns the move to exclude labor unions and farmers from antitrust laws for the same reason and even so the desire in the Wagner Act and its attached cases Jones and Laughlin Steel to actively push union collectivization Although Epstein never says so explicitly his reading of the constitution is one in which both state and federal governments have broad and expansive powers to regulate business but that the one fixed star in the constitutional firmament is that those powers should not be used to organize groups and prevent fair and free competition with them In this view forced collectivization whether of unions or of farmers or of companies was antithetical to the founders and the freedom they espoused Regulation for health safety and welfare was fine but regulation merely to elevate one group over another was not I'm not sure how much this grand interpretation of the constitution is born out from the history or the text but Epstein makes a good case one that should force the reader to uestion the now commonplace view of hoary old constitutionalism


  4. says:

    Interesting uoteIf there is one jurisprudential lesson that should be learned from Kelo v City of New London it is that the Progressive tradition continues to operate in its bankrupt fashion to the present day The crushing defeat in Kelo is a disaster for the ordinary people who now stand to be thrown unceremoniously out of their homes But than any academic writing could it may expose the dangerous side of the big government position that is the hallmark of Progressive thought Richard Epstein How Progressives Rewrote the Constitution


  5. says:

    I started this book some time ago but never finished it Turns out you just about need to have a legal mind ie legal training to understand it At least it seemed that way to me There is a lot of discussion of obscure to the layman legal cases and precedents I just ran out of steam Maybe some other time


  6. says:

    Well written summary of how progressive philosophy was implemented through Supreme Court decisions to dramatically alter the Constitution Decisions have dramatically altered the interpretation of individual freedom vs state power free markets vs state planning and direction etc Familiarity with the referenced court cases would definitely help


  7. says:

    A fairly good short read that talks about the constitution and the deliberate reinterpretation of it by the progressives and how activist judges on the Supreme Court have contributed to the erosion of liberties that were provided in the constitution to all Americans


  8. says:

    I'm still not totally convinced


  9. says:

    a short and highly legalistic exploration of the Constitutional Revolution of '37 about which we do not learn in government schools


  10. says:

    How Progressives Rewrote the Constitution by Richard A Epstein 2007


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

How Progressives Rewrote the Constitution

free read How Progressives Rewrote the Constitution

Ed that their vision of the managed economy should take precedent in all areas of life Although they purported to have great sophistication on economic and social matters their understanding was primitive The Progressives and their modern defenders have to live with the stark truth that the noblest innovations of the Progressive Era were its greatest failur. a short and highly legalistic exploration of the Constitutional Revolution of '37 about which we do not learn in government schools

free read ñ eBook or Kindle ePUB ´ Richard A. Epstein

How Progressives Rewrote the Constitution explores the fundamental shift in political and economic thought of the Progressive Era and how the Supreme Court was used to transform the Constitution into one that reflected the ideas of their own time while undermining America's founding principles Epstein examines key decisions to demonstrate how Progressives a. A succinct and well done explanation of the shift in constitutional thought from the 1910s to the 1930s Although presented as a brief of sorts for the old view of the Constitution Epstein does not engage in screeds or purist laissez faire doctrine In fact Epstein is at pains to point out how much regulation could be done under the old view of the constitution He showcases the very broad mercantilist views behind the clause on interstate and foreign commerce and celebrates Chief Justice John Marshall's very expansive reading of that clause From Gibbons v Ogden allowing a federal law on shipping licensing to overcome a local monopoly by Fulton to Brown v Maryland disallowing a state tax on importers Marshall realized that the Constitution intended the powers of the federal government over commerce to be broad and comprehensive and Epstein realizes that in practice this could lead to either laissez faire or regulated ends but he appreciates the distinctions Marshall makes Epstein even condemns such narrow readings of the commerce power as the EC Knight case 1895 which prevented federal antitrust laws from reaching a sugar manufacturing monopoly Still Epstein condemns such later decisions as Wickard v Filburn allowing limitations of agricultural production and Wrightwood dairy mandating milk cartels because they used the Commerce power to do the one thing it was not supposed to do and that is prevent competition Similarly he condemns the move to exclude labor unions and farmers from antitrust laws for the same reason and even so the desire in the Wagner Act and its attached cases Jones and Laughlin Steel to actively push union collectivization Although Epstein never says so explicitly his reading of the constitution is one in which both state and federal governments have broad and expansive powers to regulate business but that the one fixed star in the constitutional firmament is that those powers should not be used to organize groups and prevent fair and free competition with them In this view forced collectivization whether of unions or of farmers or of companies was antithetical to the founders and the freedom they espoused Regulation for health safety and welfare was fine but regulation merely to elevate one group over another was not I'm not sure how much this grand interpretation of the constitution is born out from the history or the text but Epstein makes a good case one that should force the reader to uestion the now commonplace view of hoary old constitutionalism The Story of Before reflected the ideas of their own time while undermining America's founding principles Epstein examines key decisions to demonstrate how Progressives a. A succinct and well done explanation of the shift in constitutional thought from the 1910s to the 1930s Although presented as a brief of sorts for the old view of the Constitution Epstein does not engage in screeds or purist laissez faire doctrine In fact Epstein is at pains to point out how much Tempting Treasures regulation could be done under the old view of the constitution He showcases the very broad mercantilist views behind the clause on interstate and foreign commerce and celebrates Chief Justice John Marshall's very expansive Mikrocontrollertechnik Mit Avr reading of that clause From Gibbons v Ogden allowing a federal law on shipping licensing to overcome a local monopoly by Fulton to Brown v Maryland disallowing a state tax on importers Marshall Geschichte Der Hexenprozesse realized that the Constitution intended the powers of the federal government over commerce to be broad and comprehensive and Epstein People Centricity realizes that in practice this could lead to either laissez faire or A Girls Guide to Vampires (Dark Ones regulated ends but he appreciates the distinctions Marshall makes Epstein even condemns such narrow Murderers, Scoundrels and Ragamuffins (The First Ward, readings of the commerce power as the EC Knight case 1895 which prevented federal antitrust laws from The Labors of Heracles reaching a sugar manufacturing monopoly Still Epstein condemns such later decisions as Wickard v Filburn allowing limitations of agricultural production and Wrightwood dairy mandating milk cartels because they used the Commerce power to do the one thing it was not supposed to do and that is prevent competition Similarly he condemns the move to exclude labor unions and farmers from antitrust laws for the same 7 Myths About Women and Work reason and even so the desire in the Wagner Act and its attached cases Jones and Laughlin Steel to actively push union collectivization Although Epstein never says so explicitly his Tales Of Bygone New England reading of the constitution is one in which both state and federal governments have broad and expansive powers to Capacities, Capacity Constraints and Capacity Reserves of Airports, Today and in the Future regulate business but that the one fixed star in the constitutional firmament is that those powers should not be used to organize groups and prevent fair and free competition with them In this view forced collectivization whether of unions or of farmers or of companies was antithetical to the founders and the freedom they espoused Regulation for health safety and welfare was fine but Simon and the Messy World regulation merely to elevate one group over another was not I'm not sure how much this grand interpretation of the constitution is born out from the history or the text but Epstein makes a good case one that should force the Tattered Wings reader to uestion the now commonplace view of hoary old constitutionalism

Richard A. Epstein ´ 3 summary

Ttacked much of the legal precedent and eventually weakened the Court's thinking concerning limited federal powers and the protection of individual rights Progressives on the Court undermined basic economic principles of freedom and competition paving the way for the modern redistributive and regulatory state As Epstein writes the Progressives were determin. Well written summary of how progressive philosophy was implemented through Supreme Court decisions to dramatically alter the Constitution Decisions have dramatically altered the interpretation of individual freedom vs state power free markets vs state planning and direction etc Familiarity with the referenced court cases would definitely help