Randy E. Barnett | Was Lochner Right? Natural Rights and the Fourteenth Amendme
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 чер 2024
- Randy Barnett, professor of legal theory at Georgetown Law, speaks on Lochner and the 14th Amendment.
Sponsored by the Federalist Society.
How does natural rights work for a active duty service man?
Since when couldn't you post an external link on youtube?
Anyway, 29:13 the history of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Supermajority vote over Andrew Johnson's veto.
Great content!
@FURTIVEMOVEMENT There is a maxim of law which states that which is not prohibited is already permitted.
I am of the opinion that Article 1, Section 10, clause 1 of the constitution settles the issues in both Lochner and West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish - in that the constitution makes clear that the states may not pass any law which impairs the obligation of contracts. Rather the distinction of the police power vs. some other power is a moot point because the constitutional text reads "No state shall... pass... ,or law impairing the obligation of contracts..." It, therefore, makes no difference as to what supposed state power such a law is based upon, becauses whatever power the state has to legislate the constituion restricts the use of any state power, no matter what that power is or how necessary or proper it appears to be, with respect to impairment of contracts. Such that there is no reasonable argument to be made for the state which can hold water in congruency with the established constitutional text - leading to the conclusion that Lochner is correct, and Parrish is incorrect and should be explicitly overruled.
I am further of the opinion that It is improper to read either case as an interstate commerce case because of the fact that the court did not grant cert to hear any issue of interstate commerce in either case (e.g. neither case was a tenth amendment case where upon interstate commerce may be heard), where, by reason of the judicial abstention doctrine, it follows that neither case can be properly read to have any stare decisis effect whatsoever concerning the commerce clause.
When left to men of power & greed, economics will always take precedence over liberty & justice for all (23:27 to 24:05). And still remains with us today when rightly paralleled to illegal Mexican immigration and Californian agriculture.
Therefore the Civil Rights Act of 1964 procures nor secures nothing for anyone. Wherefore, if the government can impose any restriction on individual liberty through licensure & permission fees, then such licenses are slavery by definition (27:50 to 28:13).
Watch.for the tactic of expressing a question, followed by answering a different question.. As we are all students, I leave the instances to you.
Both Harlan and Holmes correctly dissented, Harlan on the basis of Contract being subject to regulation, as laissez faire contract being subject to abuse. Locke thus cannot be construed as accurate precedent in any way. Holmes, similarly attacked contract theory as not some universal unalienable right.
Coercion includes u expressed and/or flawed reasoning for cognitive compromises made in contract. Corrupt contractors may prime and otherwise delude naive or constraints ed contractors.
All relevant communities exist for the protection of members, and both can and should closely regulate all proposed contracting.
14Amendment must not protect contracting.
As we now understand, the US Constitution has so many severe inequities ensuring ed that from Article II excessive and unconstrained Executive powers, so abused, for example, by McKinley in war powers that Congressional grant of such powers against any [nation] state actors should not be allowed.
The federal system of election of president by appointed or enumerated e!actors , another. Statistical science consistently proves that unequal individual re
presentation creates avenues for immense corruption.
The Executive department must be severed from federal structure, and become subject to the larger populace of the citizenry. Such questions as equity and common good must be decided on the basis of majority, which is demonstrably more often equitable than are states or localities, which interests more often do not align with common good, but are self-interest biased/corrupt.
Further, more precipitate, immediate and well-defined removal of executives for criminal activities, demeanor and decisions not in the interest of the whole.
Neither can this process be left to the unbalanced Senate, nor sole remedy for violation of law or proper demeanor be left with any no representative sample of the whole citizenry.
The flaws of the present Constitution, from ease of distortion through contract. as unalienable natural right, to impossibility of timely removal and prosecution of presidents, to Department of Justice and Judiciary Nomination, or appointment by unequally representing Senate, all clear cases of bias and easily flouted separation of powers for corrupt, violently divisive purposes on the part of individuals, financial superiority, and those who would usurp even such basic requisites of law itself, such as subpoena.
Radical abolitionists were one of the motivating factors that led to Lincoln's war which destroyed 600k+ lives and a once free country. Why do you reference them and argue that they should be taught in Law school? You do realize that every State profited from the peculiar institution without exception. Slavery could have been abolished peacefully independent of the war, but more importantly the prime mover behind Lincoln's aggression was the implementation of the American system as designed by Hamilton and Clay, which is the curse of the united States to this day. Hardly the perspective a libertarian should take.