Abstract
AbstractJustice Stephen J. Field was the champion of a form of liberalism often said to be especially friendly to capitalism, the approach to the Constitution traditionally identified with “Lochnerism,” i.e., a laissez-faire oriented judicial activism. More recently a form of judicial revisionism has arisen, challenging the accepted descriptions of “Lochnerism” and of Field's jurisprudence. This article is an attempt to extend the revisionist approach by arriving at a more satisfactory understanding of the grounding of Field's jurisprudence in the natural rights philosophy. Field, it turns out, orienting around natural rights, was not so unambiguously friendly to capitalism as previous generations of scholars maintained, but his approach is surely friendlier than the constitutional theories that have replaced natural rights since Field's day.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
General Social Sciences,Philosophy
Reference40 articles.
1. Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873), at 86–87
2. Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)