| Abstrakt: |
Natural Law is an essential element of America’s Constitutional-based legal system. Many of the Founding Fathers, most notably James Wilson, vigorously championed the necessity of preserving Natural Law doctrines. In many ways, Natural Law provides a moral foundation to the Constitution and a justification for the basic human rights it was created to respect. Some of the many natural rights inherent within Natural Law are expressed through the basic protections listed in the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment right to freely practice one’s religion without government intrusion, and the Fifth Amendment guarantee to life, liberty, and property with due process under the law. Natural Law has been relied upon in a host of United States Supreme Court case opinions. Decisions in the early Court were more directly forthright when referencing Natural Law to justify the moral basis for certain rulings. Chief Justice Marshall’s majority opinion in Fletcher v. Peck (1810) points to how certain portions of the Constitution, such as the “contract clause” in Article I, Section 10, can be interpreted as providing the textual equivalent of Natural Law principles. My Article draws a connection from Justice Marshall’s Natural Law jurisprudence and reliance on the contract clause to the Natural Law respecting decisions rendered during the Lochner Era. My Article seeks to establish a more robust understanding of the Constitutional justifications for the Lochner Court’s application of the “liberty to contract” and “substantive due process” to strike down state laws infringing upon corporate privileges. The Court’s use of Natural Law here may have extended the deregulatory period had the majority coalition relied upon the contract clause and Justice Marshall’s opinion in Fletcher. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
