In the Wall Street Journal, James Ely (Vanderbilt) and Nick Sibilla (Institute for Justice): The Supreme Court’s Chance to Rebuild a ‘Constitutional Bulwark’. From the introduction:
An obscure dispute over life insurance could breathe new life into a long-neglected constitutional safeguard for economic freedom.
…
Sveen v. Melin [Ed.: argued Monday 3/19; SCOTUS analysis here] is the first Contract Clause case to appear before the high court in more than 25 years. By accepting this case, the justices may be signaling a willingness to restore the clause, which has fallen into disuse, to its historical vigor.
Unlike some other disputed constitutional provisions, the clause is unequivocal: “No State shall . . . pass any . . . Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.” James Madison called it a “constitutional bulwark in favor of personal security and private rights.” The Contract Clause was one of the few curbs on state government power placed in the original Constitution.
And in conclusion:
Sveen v. Melin gives the justices a path to return to the clause’s original meaning. A ruling for Ms. Melin would set an important precedent that could advance liberal priorities as well as conservative ones. With a reinvigorated Contract Clause, laws that impose rent control, alter franchise agreements, abolish teacher tenure, or modify public employees’ benefits could all be scrutinized for infringing existing contracts. Restoring the Contract Clause to its rightful place in the constitutional order would also help ensure respect for the rule of law.
(Via How Appealing).
Posted at 6:44 AM