Menu
Rodney W. Harrell, The Contract Clause of the Constitution and the Need for “Pass Any . . . Law” Rehabilitation in the Age of Delegation, 22 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 1317 (2015).
Arguing that the “pass any . . . Law” provision should be read broadly.
Arguing that Contract Clause is an economic provision that was designed to protect investors and intended to encourage capitalism.
James W. Ely, Jr., Whatever Happened to the Contract Clause?, 4 Charleston L. Rev. 371 (2010).
Reviewing the original meaning of the Contract Clause and arguing that the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence veered away from its original meaning as the political culture became more supportive of the regulatory and welfare state.
Arguing that the Contract Clause reflected a split from European control of the economy in favor of economic liberty.
Arguing that the Contract Clause was intended to prevent the states from enacting retroactive laws to relieve debtors of their private debts.
Arguing that the Contract Clause prohibits retroactive legislation that would transfer any benefit of a bargain from one party to another.
Arguing that jurisprudence about the Contract Clause is in direct contention with the Clause’s original meaning and history.
Arguing that the prevailing, limited construction of the Contract Clause is irreconcilable with the economic structure of the Constitution and with the founding context.
Bernard Schwartz, Old Wine in Old Bottles–The Renaissance of the Contract Clause, 1979 Sup. Ct. Rev. 95 (1979).
Arguing that the Contract Clause was intended to be a civil version of the ex post facto clause.
Have we missed an article? Please let us know of any additional scholarship that should be included in the Interactive Constitution.