Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Home
  • Home
Hostname: page-component-78dcdb465f-9pqtr Total loading time: 0.277 Render date: 2021-04-17T21:55:20.396Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }
EnglishFrançais
American Political Science Review American Political Science Review

Article contents

The Primacy of Labor in American Constitutional Development

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Karen Orren
Karen Orren
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles
Get access
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

As demonstrated in landmark decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, American constitutional development has been fueled since the framing by disputes arising from changing labor relations in both private and public settings. This pattern is explained by the original provisions of the Constitution, the English background of its emergence, and the primacy of labor as a theoretical concept for studying political change. The Court's decisions protecting property express the status quo, the establishment against which transformations proceed. However, the property cases may also be reinterpreted along the lines indicated.

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 89 , Issue 2 , June 1995 , pp. 377 - 388
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.
If you should have access and can't see this content please contact technical support.

References

Abrams v. United States. 1919. 250 U.S. 616.Google Scholar
Brown v. Board of Education. 1954. 347 U.S. 483.Google Scholar
Calder v. Bull. 1798. 3 U.S. 386.Google Scholar
Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge. 1837. 36 U.S. 420.Google Scholar
Chinese Exclusion Case 1889. 130 U.S. 581.Google Scholar
City of Richmond v. J. A. Croson Company 1989. 488 U.S. 469.Google Scholar
Civil Rights Cases. 1883. 109 U.S. 3.Google Scholar
Coleman v. Miller. 1939. 307 U.S. 433.Google Scholar
Cooper v. Telfair. 1800. 4 U.S. 14.Google Scholar
Dartmouth College v. Woodward. 1819. 17 U.S. 518.Google Scholar
Dred Scott v. Sandford. 1857. 60 U.S. 393.Google Scholar
Duplex Printing Press v. Deering. 1921. 254 U.S. 443.Google Scholar
Elkison v. Deliesseline. 1823. 8 F.Cas. 493.Google Scholar
Fletcher v. Peck. 1810. 10 U.S. 87.Google Scholar
Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority. 1985. 469 U.S. 528.Google Scholar
Gibbons v. Ogden. 1824. 22 U.S. 1.Google Scholar
Godcharles v. Wigeman. 1886. 113 Pa. 431.Google Scholar
Griswold v. Connecticut. 1965. 381 U.S. 479.Google Scholar
Hammer v. Dagenhart. 1918. 247 U.S. 251.Google Scholar
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States. 1964. 379 U.S. 241.Google Scholar
Hill v. Wallace. 1922. 259 U.S. 44.Google Scholar
Holden v. Hardy. 1898. 169 U.S. 366.Google Scholar
Huidekoper's Lessee v. Douglass. 1805. 7 U.S. 1.Google Scholar
Humphrey's Executor v. United States. 1935. 295 U.S. 602.Google Scholar
In re Debs. 1895. 158 U.S. 564.Google Scholar
In re Neagle. 1890. 135 U.S. 1.Google Scholar
Jerrard Saunders. 1794. 30 E.R. 721Google Scholar
Jones v. People. 1884. 110 Ill. 590.Google Scholar
Lochner v. New York. 1905. 198 U.S. 45.Google Scholar
McCulloch v. Maryland. 1819. 17 U.S. 316.Google Scholar
McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents. 1950. 339 U.S. 637.Google Scholar
Marbury v. Madison. 1803. 5 U.S. 137.Google Scholar
Muller v. Oregon. 1908. 208 U.S. 412.Google Scholar
Munn v. Illinois. 1877. 94 U.S. 113.Google Scholar
Myers v. United States. 1926. 272 U.S. 52.Google Scholar
National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel. 1937. 301 U.S. 1.Google Scholar
National League of Cities v. Usery. 1976. 426 U.S. 833.Google Scholar
New Jersey v. Wilson. 1812. 11 U.S. 164.Google Scholar
New York v. Miln. 1837. 36 U.S. 102.Google Scholar
Ogden v. Saunders. 1827. 25 U.S. 213.Google Scholar
Opp Cotton Mills v. Administrator. 1941. 312 U.S. 126.Google Scholar
Patterson v. McLean Credit union. 1989. 491 U.S. 164.Google Scholar
Planned Parenthood v. Casey. 1992. 112 S.Ct. 2791.Google Scholar
Prize Cases. 1863. 67 U.S. 635.Google Scholar
Providence Bank v. Billings. 1830. 29 U.S. 514.Google Scholar
Roe v. Wade. 1973. 410 U.S. 113.Google Scholar
Schechter Poultry v. United States. 1935. 295 U.S. 495.Google Scholar
Schenck v. United States. 1919. 249 U.S. 47.Google Scholar
Slaughter-House Cases. 1873. 83 U.S. 36.Google Scholar
Somerset v. Stewart. 1772. 98 E.R. 499.Google Scholar
Stafford v. Wallace. 1922. 258 U.S. 495.Google Scholar
Stanhope v. Earl Verney. 1761. 28 E.R. 826Google Scholar
Sturges v. Crowninshield. 1819. 17 U.S. 122.Google Scholar
Sweatt v. Painter. 1950. 339 U.S. 629.Google Scholar
Terrett v. Taylor. 1815. 13 U.S. 43.Google Scholar
Transportation Union v. Long Island Railroad. 1982. 455 U.S. 678.Google Scholar
United States v. Cruikshank. 1876. 92 U.S. 542.Google Scholar
United States v. Darby. 1941. 312 U.S. 100.Google Scholar
United States v. Fisher. 1805. 6 U.S. 358.Google Scholar
United States v. Hutcheson. 1941. 312 U.S. 219.Google Scholar
Ward's Cove Packing v. Antonio. 1989. 490 U.S. 642.Google Scholar
Ware v. Hylton. 1796. 3 U.S. 199.Google Scholar
West Coast Hotel v. Parrish. 1937. 300 U.S. 379.Google Scholar
Wickard v. Filburn. 1942. 317 U.S. 111.Google Scholar
Wilson v. New. 1917. 243 U.S. 332.Google Scholar
Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer. 1952. 343 U.S. 937.Google Scholar
Ackerman, Bruce. 1991. We the People: Foundations. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
SirBlackstone, William. 1979. Commentaries on the Laws of England. 4 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Brigham, John. 1983. “Property and the Supreme Court: Do the Justices Make Sense?” Polity 16:242–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cover, Robert M. 1975. Justice Accused: Antislavery and the Judicial Process. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
SirDwarris, Fortunatus. 1848. A General Treatise on Statutes. London: William Benning.Google Scholar
Farrar, Timothy. 1819. Report of the Case of the Trustees of Dartmouth College against William H. Woodward. Portsmouth: Foster.Google Scholar
Fehrenbacher, Donald E. 1981. Slavery, Law, and Politics: The Dred Scott Case in Historical Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Foner, Eric. 1970. Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party before the Civil War. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Forbath, William E. 1989. “Law and the Shaping of the American Labor Movement.” Harvard Law Review 102:1111–1255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrow, David J. 1994. Liberty and Sexuality: The Pursuit of Privacy and the Making of Roe v. Wade. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Gates, John. 1987. “Partisan Realignment, Unconstitutional State Policies, and the U.S. Supreme Court, 1837–1964.” American Journal of Political Science 31:259–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hattam, Victoria C. 1993. Labor Visions and State Power: The Origins of Business Unionism in the United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kent, James. 1832. Commentaries on American Law. 2d ed.New York: Halstead.Google Scholar
Klare, Karl. 1978. “The Deradicalization of the Wagner Act and the Origins of Modern Legal Consciousness, 1937–1941.” Minnesota Law Review 62:265–339.Google Scholar
Kluger, Richard. 1977. Simple Justice: The History of Brown v. Board of Education and Black America's Struggle for Equality. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
McCann, Michael W. 1984. “Resurrection and Reform: Perspectives on Property in the American Constitutional Tradition.” Politics and Society 13:143–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, Forrest. 1985. Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
McGrath, Peter. 1966. Yazoo: Law and Politics in the New Republic. Providence: Brown University Press.Google Scholar
Meister, Robert. 1989. “The Logic and Legacy of Dred Scott: Marshall, Taney, and the Sublimation of Republican Thought.” Studies in American Political Development 3:199–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nedelsky, Jennifer. 1990. Private Property and the Limits of American Constitutionalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, John R. Jr., 1987. Liberty and Property: Political Economy and Policymaking in the New Nation, 1789–1812. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
O'Fallon, James M. 1992. “Marbury.” Stanford Law Review 44:219–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orren, Karen. 1991. Belated Feudalism: Labor, the Law, and Liberal Development in the United States. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Orren, Karen. 1994. “The Work of Government: Recovering the Discourse of Office in Marbury v. Madison.” Studies in American Political Development 8:60–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Parliamentary History of England from the Earliest Period to the Year 1803. 1814. London: T.C. Hansard.Google Scholar
Parsons, Talcott. 1969. Politics and Social Structure. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
Pomeroy, John Norton. 1941. A Treatise on Equity Jurisprudence as Administered in the United States of America. 5th ed. 5 vols. San Francisco: Bancroft Whitney.Google Scholar
Pound, Roscoe. 1908. “Liberty of Contract.” Yale Law Journal 18:454–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, William Hyde. 1913. The English Patents of Monopoly. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, E. Fitch. 1848. Commentaries on Statute and Constitutional Law. Albany: Gould, Banks & Gould.Google Scholar
Snowiss, Sylvia. 1990. Judicial Review and the Law of the Constitution. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Strong, Frank R. 1986. Substantive Due Process of Law: A Dichotomy of Sense and Nonsense. Durham: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
Tomlins, Christopher. 1985. The State and the Unions: Labor Relations, Law, and the Organized Labor Movement, 1880–1960. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tushnet, Mark. 1981. The American Law of Slavery, 1810–1860. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
VanderVelde, Lea S. 1989. “The Labor Vision of the Thirteenth Amendment.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 138:437–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, Charles. 1947. The Supreme Court in United States History. 2 vols. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Williams, Raymond. 1983. Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. Oxford University Press, 1983.Google Scholar
Zeigler, Sara. N.d. “Family Service: Labor, the Family, and Legal Reform in the United States.” Ph.D. diss., University of California, Los Angeles. ForthcomingGoogle Scholar

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 16 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 17th April 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

6
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The Primacy of Labor in American Constitutional Development
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

The Primacy of Labor in American Constitutional Development
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

The Primacy of Labor in American Constitutional Development
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *