In Part 1, we saw that the Lochner saga began in 1895, when the state of New York enacted a law setting maximum hours for bakers. Joseph Lochner appealed his conviction under that law all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. New York argued that its law was a proper exercise of the police power aimed at promoting worker health. But in a 1905 decision, the Supreme Court struck down the law as violating the right of contract between the employer and employees. In Part 2, well examine Justice Holmess dissenting opinion in detail.
Uninterested in whether or not the Bakeshop Act was a health law, Holmes devoted only a single line of his dissent to the issue: A reasonable man might think it a proper measure on the score of health.1 As one commentator noted, he entirely ignored his colleagues and refused to engage in their debate about how to apply existing legal tests for distinguishing health and safety laws from special interest legislation.2 Holmes, who has been called the finest philosophical mind in the history of judging, had more profound issues on his mind.3
Peckhams majority opinion had been based on the premise that the Constitution protects individual liberty, including liberty of contract. Holmes attacked that premise outright. How could liberty of contract possibly be a principle capable of yielding a decision in Lochners case, Holmes asked, when violations of such liberty are routinely permitted by law? The liberty of the citizen to do as he likes so long as he does not interfere with the liberty of others to do the same, Holmes observed, is interfered with by school laws, by the Post Office, by every state or municipal institution which takes his money for purposes thought desirable, whether he likes it or not. For good measure, he cited several cases in which the Court had recently approved laws prohibiting lotteries, doing business on Sunday, engaging in usury, selling stock on margin, and employing underground miners more than eight hours a dayeach law a clear interference with contractual liberty. General propositions do not decide concrete cases, Holmes nonchalantly concludedand what judge could have shown otherwise, given the state of American jurisprudence at the time?
With liberty of contract in tatters, Holmes could casually dismiss it as a mere shibboleth, a subjective opinion harbored by five justices that has no proper role in constitutional adjudication.4 To drive home his contempt for the majoritys approach, Holmes included in his Lochner dissent a snide, sarcastic gem that has become the most quoted sentence in this much-quoted opinion: The Fourteenth Amendment does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencers Social Statics.5 For a modern reader to grasp the meaning of this reference, some factual background is required. The English author Herbert Spencer (18201903) was a prominent intellectual whose most important book, Social Statics,was originally published in 1853 and reissued continually thereafter. In the three decades after the Civil War, one historian has written, it was impossible to be active in any field of intellectual work without mastering Spencer.6 Central to Spencers thinking was a belief that our emotions dictate our moral values, which include an instinct of personal rights.7 That instinct Spencer defined as a feeling that leads him to claim as great a share of natural privilege as is claimed by othersa feeling that leads him to repel anything like an encroachment upon what he thinks his sphere of original freedom.8 This led Spencer to conclude: Every man has freedom to do all that he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man.9 Holmes, by coyly denying that Spencers law of equal liberty had the solemn status of a constitutional principle, masterfully conveyed two points: that any principle of individual liberty must emanate from a source outside the Constitution, not within it and that the Peckham majoritys liberty of contract had the same intellectual status as Spencers emotionalist rubbish. All my life I have sneered at the natural rights of man, Holmes confided to a friend some years later.10 But in a lifetime of sneering, Holmes never uttered a more damaging slur than this offhand reference to Herbert Spencers Social Statics.
READ ALSO: Ayn Rand on Applying the Principle of Objective Law
To be sure, the Constitutions basic principle was undercut by important omissions and contradictions, the most serious being its toleration of slavery at the state level. But the Civil War tragically and unmistakably exposed the evil of a legal system that allows state governments to violate individual rights.12 Immediately after that wars end, three constitutional amendments re-defined and strengthened the federal system, elevating the federal government to full sovereignty over the states and extending federal protection to individuals whose rights might be violated by state legislation. Two of these amendments were quite specific: The Thirteenth banned slavery, and the Fifteenth required that blacks be allowed to vote. But the Fourteenth Amendments reach was much broader. Not only did it endow individuals with federal citizenship, it also specified that no state government shall abridge the privileges or immunities13 of any citizen or deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
In light of this context, no honest jurist in 1905 could deny that the Constitution embodies certain views on the proper relationship between the individual and his government. Reasonable disagreements might concern how that basic framework should guide interpretation of the documents express language, but no such disagreement could obscure the fact that the Constitution was chock-full of substantive content. Yet it was precisely this fact that Holmes now urged the Court to evade. The same compromises and exceptions that rendered liberty of contract an easy target in Holmess attack on the Lochner majority also lent plausibility to his wider assault on the notion that Americas Constitution embodies any principles at all. A constitution, he wrote, is not intended to embody a particular economic theory, whether of paternalism and the organic relation of the citizen to the State or of laissez faire. As is evident from the two illustrations he chose, Holmes was using economic theory to mean a principle defining the individuals relationship to the state. His first example, paternalism and the organic relation of the citizen to the state, refers to the Hegelian view that a nation, in one philosophers description, is not an association of autonomous individuals [but] is itself an individual, a mystic person that swallows up the citizens and transcends them, an independent, self-sustaining organism, made of human beings, with a will and purpose of its own.14 Thus, as Hegel wrote, If the state claims life, the individual must surrender it.15 Holmess second example, laissez faire, refers to unregulated capitalism, a social system in which a nation is an association of autonomous individuals, who appoint government as their agent for defending individual rights (including private property rights) against force and fraud.
In Holmess view, a constitution cannot and should not attempt to embody either of these theories, or indeed any particular view on the individuals relation to the state. Rather, a constitution is made for people of fundamentally differing views, any one of which may rightfully gain ascendancy if its adherents compose a sufficiently influential fraction of the electorate. As Holmes put it: Every opinion tends to become a law, and the reshaping of law is the natural outcome of a dominant opinion.16 In other words, a nation made up of capitalists, socialists, communists, anarchists, Quakers, Muslims, atheists, and a hundred other persuasions cannot reasonably expect its constitution to elevate one political view above all the others. Because opinions vary so widely, a nation that deems one superior to all others risks being torn apart by internal dissensions unable to find outlets in the political process. On this view, a proper constitution averts disaster by providing an orderly mechanism for embodying in law the constantly shifting, subjective opinions of political majorities. As one commentator explained, Holmes believed that the law of the English-speaking peoples was an experiment in peaceful evolution in which a fair hearing in court substituted for the violent combat of more primitive societies.17 It did not trouble Holmes that under such a constitution, society might adopt tyrannical laws. As he once wrote to a friend, If my fellow citizens want to go to Hell I will help them. Its my job.18 And so Holmes was able to conclude, in his Lochner dissent, that the word liberty in the Fourteenth Amendment is perverted when it is held to prevent the natural outcome of a dominant opinion.
So there you have it. In just 617 carefully chosen words, the framework of liberty erected by the Founding Fathers and buttressed by the Civil War amendments had been interpreted out of existence.
READ ALSO: What Questions Would You Ask a Supreme Court Nominee?
In short, Holmes believed that theSupreme Court presides over an empty Constitution empty of purpose, of moral content, of enduring meaning bereft of any embedded principles defining the relationship between man and the state. This distinctively Holmesian view, novel in 1905, is todays orthodoxy. It dominates constitutional interpretation, defines public debate, and furnishes a litmus test for evaluating nominees to the Supreme Court. Although judges sometimes close their eyes to its logical implications when their pet causes are endangered, Holmess basic argument remains unrefuted by the legal establishment. In his bleak universe, there exists no principled limit on government power, no permanent institutional barrier between ourselves and tyranny and the government can dispose of the individual as it pleases, as long as procedural niceties are observed. This pernicious Holmesian influence is reflected in the declining stature of Americas judiciary.
MR. JUSTICE HOLMES dissenting.
I regret sincerely that I am unable to agree with the judgment in this case, and that I think it my duty to express my dissent.
This case is decided upon an economic theory which a large part of the country does not entertain. If it were a question whether I agreed with that theory, I should desire to study it further and long before making up my mind. But I do not conceive that to be my duty, because I strongly believe that my agreement or disagreement has nothing to do with the right of a majority to embody their opinions in law. It is settled by various decisions of this court that state constitutions and state laws may regulate life in many ways which we as legislators might think as injudicious or if you like as tyrannical as this, and which equally with this interfere with the liberty to contract. Sunday laws and usury laws are ancient examples. A more modern one is the prohibition of lotteries. The liberty of the citizen to do as he likes so long as he does not interfere with the liberty of others to do the same, which has been a shibboleth for some well-known writers, is interfered with by school laws, by the Post Office, by every state or municipal institution which takes his money for purposes thought desirable, whether he likes it or not. The Fourteenth Amendment does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencers Social Statics. The other day we sustained the Massachusetts vaccination law. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11. United States and state statutes and decisions cutting down the liberty to contract by way of combination are familiar to this court. Northern Securities Co. v. United States, 193 U.S. 197. Two years ago we upheld the prohibition of sales of stock on margins or for future delivery in the constitution of California. Otis v. Parker, 187 U.S. 606. The decision sustaining an eight hour law for miners is still recent. Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366. Some of these laws embody convictions or prejudices which judges are likely to share. Some may not. But a constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory, whether of paternalism and the organic relation of the citizen to the State or of laissez faire. It is made for people of fundamentally differing views, and the accident of our finding certain opinions natural and familiar or novel and even shocking ought not to conclude our judgment upon the question whether statutes embodying them conflict with the Constitution of the United States.
General propositions do not decide concrete cases. The decision will depend on a judgment or intuition more subtle than any articulate major premise. But I think that the proposition just stated, if it is accepted, will carry us far toward the end. Every opinion tends to become a law. I think that the word liberty in the Fourteenth Amendment is perverted when it is held to prevent the natural outcome of a dominant opinion, unless it can be said that a rational and fair man necessarily would admit that the statute proposed would infringe fundamental principles as they have been understood by the traditions of our people and our law. It does not need research to show that no such sweeping condemnation can be passed upon the statute before us. A reasonable man might think it a proper measure on the score of health. Men whom I certainly could not pronounce unreasonable would uphold it as a first instalment of a general regulation of the hours of work. Whether in the latter aspect it would be open to the charge of inequality I think it unnecessary to discuss.
To be concluded.
If you value the ideas presented here, please become an ARI Member today.
Footnotes
Read more:
Justice Holmes and the Empty Constitution (Part 2) - New Ideal
- That Day I Interviewed Ayn Rand - Foundation for Economic Education - March 2nd, 2024 [March 2nd, 2024]
- Ayn Rand's Anthem Was Adapted Into a Graphic Novel, and Its Timing Couldn't Be Better | Maeve Ronan - Foundation for Economic Education - February 16th, 2024 [February 16th, 2024]
- Real World Economics: Ayn Rand and the Grand Canyon - St. Paul Pioneer Press - February 1st, 2024 [February 1st, 2024]
- Tech Entrepreneur Elle Morrill Offers Inspirational Life Advice in ARI Roundtable - New Ideal - February 1st, 2024 [February 1st, 2024]
- America needs to clean up its act | News, Sports, Jobs - Alpena News - August 26th, 2023 [August 26th, 2023]
- How immigration creates a more prosperous world - Learn Liberty - August 26th, 2023 [August 26th, 2023]
- Yad Vashem tour by Israel Heritage Foundation visibly moves ... - JNS.org - August 26th, 2023 [August 26th, 2023]
- Anna May Wong and Chinatown Noir: 4 Essential Films - CrimeReads - August 26th, 2023 [August 26th, 2023]
- Ditch your business books and pick up these three novels for a fresh ... - ETHRWorld Middle East - August 26th, 2023 [August 26th, 2023]
- Your Guide to the Rory Gilmore Reading Challenge - The Everygirl - August 26th, 2023 [August 26th, 2023]
- BioShock 4 May Have an Edge Compared to Other Modern FPS ... - GameRant - June 2nd, 2023 [June 2nd, 2023]
- LETTER: When will Republicans wake up? - The Pantagraph - June 2nd, 2023 [June 2nd, 2023]
- 'The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel' Celebrated Selfishness as a Virtue - Reason - June 2nd, 2023 [June 2nd, 2023]
- Blaming the Victim - CounterPunch.org - CounterPunch - June 2nd, 2023 [June 2nd, 2023]
- Coalition of AI leaders sees 'societal-scale risks' from the ... - SiliconANGLE News - June 2nd, 2023 [June 2nd, 2023]
- Fall 2023 Adult Announcements: Literary Fiction - Publishers Weekly - June 2nd, 2023 [June 2nd, 2023]
- 20 Box Office Bombs That Got Sequels - MovieWeb - June 2nd, 2023 [June 2nd, 2023]
- Religious Skeptics Should Question Their Moral Theology - New Ideal - May 18th, 2023 [May 18th, 2023]
- What Ayn Rand Understood about Romantic Love That so Many Fail ... - Foundation for Economic Education - May 18th, 2023 [May 18th, 2023]
- 1923 Emmy Submissions Revealed for Harrison Ford, Helen Mirren and More (EXCLUSIVE) - Variety - May 18th, 2023 [May 18th, 2023]
- Column: This is what happens when you take Ayn Rand seriously - April 10th, 2023 [April 10th, 2023]
- How Ayn Rand, Emerson and Thoreau perverted the American Dream - April 10th, 2023 [April 10th, 2023]
- Ayn Rand - Books, Quotes & Philosophy - Biography - February 18th, 2023 [February 18th, 2023]
- EDITORIAL: Remembering the great Ayn Rand, a champion of capitalism and ... - February 5th, 2023 [February 5th, 2023]
- The curious cult of the friend of fascism | Anthony Daniels - The Critic - October 17th, 2022 [October 17th, 2022]
- Ocean City 'Jeopardy!' champion wins almost $60,000 in 7th consecutive win, over $220,000 total - Press of Atlantic City - October 17th, 2022 [October 17th, 2022]
- Will Amanda Seyfried (The Dropout) ride her Emmy high all the way to a SAG Award win? - Gold Derby - October 6th, 2022 [October 6th, 2022]
- Books review: What to read in October - Reader's Digest - October 6th, 2022 [October 6th, 2022]
- Democrats dig the graves of freedom and prosperity - Washington Times - October 6th, 2022 [October 6th, 2022]
- Baseball and Yom Kippur: Is there a Koufax curse? - Forward - October 6th, 2022 [October 6th, 2022]
- The limits of Justice Ketanji Brown Jacksons power - Fortune - October 6th, 2022 [October 6th, 2022]
- Race Across The World and Louis Theroux Interviews among new BBC Factual and Arts slate - Royal Television Society | - October 6th, 2022 [October 6th, 2022]
- Fool Britannia: sloppy Tory treatise a hint of horrible things to come - Crikey - October 6th, 2022 [October 6th, 2022]
- Day one at the Tory conference: Industry cries out for stability but U-turns and uncertainty continue - Building - October 6th, 2022 [October 6th, 2022]
- Former Capitol Police Chief Steven A. Sund Set To Publish A New Book About The Attack On January 6th With Explosive Never-Before-Revealed Information... - September 27th, 2022 [September 27th, 2022]
- Right place at the right time: freeports model gives fillip to St Helens regeneration scheme - The Guardian - September 27th, 2022 [September 27th, 2022]
- Reflections from London on the queen's life and death - Baptist News Global - September 27th, 2022 [September 27th, 2022]
- Editorial: NH voters, beware of radical threat on ballot - Valley News - September 11th, 2022 [September 11th, 2022]
- 10 Wednesday AM Reads - The Big Picture - Barry Ritholtz - September 11th, 2022 [September 11th, 2022]
- Opinion: Renewables are great and all, but who'll pay when they fail? - Houston Chronicle - September 11th, 2022 [September 11th, 2022]
- The Simpsons' Playdate With Destiny Short Was A Product Of Serendipity - /Film - August 27th, 2022 [August 27th, 2022]
- Filthy Animals Pries Open The Violent, Animalistic Notions In Human Relationships - Gaysi - August 27th, 2022 [August 27th, 2022]
- How Isabel Paterson Helped Ayn Rand Find Atlantis - The Objective Standard - August 25th, 2022 [August 25th, 2022]
- Where Is 'The Anarchists' Star Jason Henza Today? - Newsweek - August 25th, 2022 [August 25th, 2022]
- Objectivism Q&A with Ben Bayer and Dan Schwartz - New Ideal - August 2nd, 2022 [August 2nd, 2022]
- Book Banning Is Wrong Unless It Gets Me Out of Helping My Kid With His Homework - The Hard Times - August 2nd, 2022 [August 2nd, 2022]
- THE TEACHER'S DESK: Breaking the Rules | Opinion | thetimestribune.com - Times Tribune of Corbin - July 21st, 2022 [July 21st, 2022]
- If Big Ten didnt just add lucrative programs like USC but trimmed stragglers, whod get the boot? | Jones - PennLive - July 21st, 2022 [July 21st, 2022]
- A high point of our time in southern Alberta, Canada - Patheos - July 21st, 2022 [July 21st, 2022]
- The Banality of Putin and Xi - New Ideal - June 30th, 2022 [June 30th, 2022]
- 4 Pillars of The Illusion | C. Don Jones - Patheos - June 30th, 2022 [June 30th, 2022]
- The Philosophic Case for the Absolute Right to Abortion - New Ideal - June 26th, 2022 [June 26th, 2022]
- R2AK: Will monohulls sweep the podium? - Scuttlebutt Sailing News - June 26th, 2022 [June 26th, 2022]
- Bill Maher Addressed an Eventful Political Week on Real Time - InsideHook - June 26th, 2022 [June 26th, 2022]
- Ayn Rand v Donald Trump? - Daily Kos - June 22nd, 2022 [June 22nd, 2022]
- Letter: The rules of life are very simple - Detroit Lakes Tribune - June 22nd, 2022 [June 22nd, 2022]
- The Banality of Putin and Xi | Yaron Brook and Elan Journo - IAI - June 22nd, 2022 [June 22nd, 2022]
- American culture is destroying itself, and the planet, says leading activist Bill McKibben - Yahoo Philippines News - June 22nd, 2022 [June 22nd, 2022]
- Is Discussing the Consequences of Anti-Vaccine Disinformation Fun? - Science Based Medicine - June 3rd, 2022 [June 3rd, 2022]
- O'Donnell: Will the NBA's new red-light camera calls ruin The Finals for ABC/ESPN? - Daily Herald - June 1st, 2022 [June 1st, 2022]
- The Strange and Terrifying Ideas of Neoreactionaries Current Affairs - Current Affairs - June 1st, 2022 [June 1st, 2022]
- Martin Scorsese, Objectivism, Relativism, and How We Read Cinema - No Film School - June 1st, 2022 [June 1st, 2022]
- Ayn Rand, Objectivists, and COVID - Science Based Medicine - May 25th, 2022 [May 25th, 2022]
- Ayn Rand vs. Classical Economists - The Objective Standard - May 25th, 2022 [May 25th, 2022]
- Opinion | Demolishing the Demonic Plans of Our Enemy, and Can We Get An Amen - Common Dreams - May 20th, 2022 [May 20th, 2022]
- Ayn Rand's We the Living: Back on the Silver Screenand Better Than Ever - The Objective Standard - May 17th, 2022 [May 17th, 2022]
- Congress revival: Time to break free of family - The Hans India - May 17th, 2022 [May 17th, 2022]
- The Financial Dark Ages Are Ending Thanks To Bitcoin - Bitcoin Magazine - May 17th, 2022 [May 17th, 2022]
- Marital rape: How understanding context rather than just focusing on consent will help resolve the issue - Firstpost - May 13th, 2022 [May 13th, 2022]
- Deadly Class Season 2: Is a Release Date or Rumor in the Offing on Netflix? - Federal Regulations Advisor - May 13th, 2022 [May 13th, 2022]
- The Daily Cartoon and Live Briefing: Monday, May 9, 2022 - FlaglerLive.com - May 13th, 2022 [May 13th, 2022]
- Victory at San Jacinto liberated the individual | Opinion | jacksonvilleprogress.com - Jacksonville Daily Progress - April 20th, 2022 [April 20th, 2022]
- RUSH's GEDDY LEE Says NEIL PEART 'Didn't Want Anyone To Know' About His Illness: 'He Wanted To Keep It In The House' - BLABBERMOUTH.NET - April 20th, 2022 [April 20th, 2022]
- The Alternative Meat Industry Wants Solar Power Style Mandates And Subsidies - Science 2.0 - April 20th, 2022 [April 20th, 2022]
- diSConnected: Is Ayn Rand or Mother Teresa better for protecting South Carolinians with disabilities? - South Carolina Public Radio - April 15th, 2022 [April 15th, 2022]
- Did the John Birch Society Win in the End? - The Bulwark - April 15th, 2022 [April 15th, 2022]
- Boris Johnsons Covid bravado insults the NHS and the public - The Guardian - April 15th, 2022 [April 15th, 2022]
- Science Fiction in a Time of Crisis - Filmmaker Magazine - April 15th, 2022 [April 15th, 2022]
- The criticism facing Rishi Sunak has nothing to do with race, and all to do with greed - iNews - April 15th, 2022 [April 15th, 2022]
- Zack Snyder's Star Wars-Themed Movie Recruits The Princess Bride Star - Giant Freakin Robot - April 11th, 2022 [April 11th, 2022]