Abstract
This essay compares four religious, political, and legal controversies in 19 th and early 20 th century America. Each was grounded in the sharp division between the Republican and Democratic Parties’ perspectives on public policy, and all four were fired by religious differences involving the active use of “positive” law and judicial fiat. Several scholars have addressed the emergence in the state courts of substantive due process, as well as the fight in those courts over the use of the bible and school prayer in the public schools. But no one has noted the similar political division there, nor has anyone examined the political or religious affiliations of the state court justices who decided tests of the constitutionality of the early substantive due process cases, or those involving bible reading and school prayer. Two other related issues - the first regarding slavery in the territories; the second, regarding Mormon polygamy and Statehood - will receive briefer attention. The four issues constitute what this essay offers to our understanding of how religiously inspired party politics determined the outcome of these controversies in both state and federal legislatures and state and federal courts. I begin with a well-known judicial controversy, set in the 1840s & ‘50s: the emergence of substantive due process, and I relate it to state efforts to prohibit the sale of alcohol.
Highlights
This essay compares four religious, political, and legal controversies in 19th and early 20th century America
Each was grounded in the sharp division between the Republican[1] and Democratic Parties’ perspectives on public policy, and all four were fired by religious differences involving the active use of “positive” law and judicial fiat
Several scholars have addressed the emergence in the state courts of substantive due process, as well as the fight in those courts over the use of the bible and school prayer in the public schools
Summary
This essay compares four religious, political, and legal controversies in 19th and early 20th century America. No one has noted the similar political division there, nor has anyone examined the political or religious affiliations of the state court justices who decided tests of the constitutionality of the early substantive due process cases, or those involving bible reading and school prayer. I begin with a well-known judicial controversy, set in the 1840s & ‘50s: the emergence of substantive due process, and I relate it to state efforts to prohibit the sale of alcohol. This term refers to the judicial limiting of legislative and executive powers with respect to statutes affecting the use of one’s property, as opposed to its traditional meaning, “procedural” due process, which concerns ways criminal defendants are to be treated procedurally in the legal process. To date no one has offered sufficient explanations as to why these state court jurists took the positions they did on this
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
