Everand Logo

Welcome to Everand!

  • Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

    Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

    Death Grip: Loosening the Law's Stranglehold over Economic Liberty
    Death Grip: Loosening the Law's Stranglehold over Economic Liberty
    Death Grip: Loosening the Law's Stranglehold over Economic Liberty
    Ebook133 pages2 hours

    Death Grip: Loosening the Law's Stranglehold over Economic Liberty

    By Clint Bolick

    ()

    Read preview

    About this ebook

    Clint Bolick examines the assault on economic liberty brought about by the 19th century's Slaughter-House Cases. He explains how those cases nullified the privileges or immunities clause of the 14th Amendment and how the repercussions continue to manifest themselves today. Bolick offers hope for the future, however, in describing the current campaign to restore economic liberty as a fundamental civil right.
    LanguageEnglish
    PublisherIndependent Publishers Group
    Release dateSep 1, 2013
    ISBN9780817913168
    Death Grip: Loosening the Law's Stranglehold over Economic Liberty
    Author

    Clint Bolick

    Clint Bolick is vice president for litigation at the Goldwater Institute in Phoenix and is a research fellow with the Hoover Institution. One of the nation’s leading constitutional litigators, Bolick has won numerous landmark legal victories in state and federal courts from coast to coast. Bolick has been profiled twice in The New York Times and writes extensively for The Wall Street Journal and other publications. 

    Read more from Clint Bolick

    Related to Death Grip

    Related ebooks

    Politics For You

    View More
    View More

    Related podcast episodes

    Related articles

    • Article

      What To Consider When A Trust Is Involved In Legal Action

      Oct 17, 2020

      ANY LEGAL action by a trust must be properly brought in the names of the trustees. Since a trust is not a person and cannot act, when litigation is initiated the action must be brought (or defended) by its trustees. Although it is desirable to cite t

      3 min read

    • Article

      Prosecute the Police

      Jun 13, 2020

      Prosecute the Police
      7 min read

    • Article

      There’s A Bond For That

      Apr 6, 2021

      There’s A Bond For That
      2 min read

    • Article

      Do Trustees Become The Legal Guardians Of Your Children?

      Jul 24, 2020

      The guardianship of children is governed in terms of section 18 of the Children’s Act, whereas the role of trustees is governed by the common law and the Trust Property Control Act, explains Elmarie Neilson of Neilsons Attorneys. The powers of truste

      1 min read

    • Article

      It’s Time For Action On Privacy

      Jan 28, 2019

      IN 2019, IT’S TIME TO STAND UP FOR THE RIGHT TO privacy—yours, mine, all of ours. Consumers shouldn’t have to tolerate another year of companies irresponsibly amassing huge user profiles, data breaches that seem out of control and the vanishing abili

      2 min read

    • Article

      Busting Trust Myths

      Sep 3, 2020

      “Trust busting” is the term often used to describe instances where a court finds in favour of a claimant trying to access trust assets. Here, though, I do not want to talk about “trust busting”. Instead I want to bust some trust myths. There has been

      2 min read

    • Article

      Common Law Principles And The CPA

      Dec 11, 2019

      Common Law Principles And The CPA
      1 min read

    • Article

      Don’t Assume A Trustee Has The Board’s Authority To Act

      Nov 21, 2020

      OUTSIDE parties that deal with a trust often assume the trustees have both the authority and capacity to enter into transactions binding the trust. If trustees have not ensured that these requirements are met, to what extent can these outside parties

      3 min read

    • Article

      When A Trustee Can And Cannot Be Removed

      Feb 20, 2021

      TRUSTEES are legally vested with the administration of a trust’s assets. They must manage the assets and liabilities of the trust in terms of the provisions of the trust instrument and the law, and not necessarily in a manner that pleases the benefic

      3 min read

    • Article

      How to Search for Old Savings Bonds

      May 1, 2018

      [Question]My grandfather and father passed away when I was 8 years old. I heard they had savings bonds for me. I'm 37 now and have no one left to ask about it. How do I find out if there really are any savings bonds for me, and how do I go about find

      2 min read

    • Article

      How to File an FOIA Request

      Aug 18, 2020

      Want your ancestor’s application for a Social Security Card (called an SS-5), WWII alien registration form, or other federal record that isn’t already publicly available? You’ll need to send a Freedom of Information Act (or FOIA) request to the right

      1 min read

    • Article

      You Be The Judge

      Jul 1, 2018

      Parents will do anything for their children. Jeffrey Dow Sr. and Kathyrn Dow were no different. They raised their two children, Jeffrey Jr. and Teresa, on 125 acres of bucolic land that they planned to leave to their kids in the hope that both of the

      1 min read

    • Article

      Changes To Trust Legislation

      Apr 2, 2020

      It has often been considered that the role of trustee of a trust is an onerous one, with trustees exposed to liability claims by beneficiaries if financial decisions don’t work out. This has led to increasing reluctance by professionals to offer them

      2 min read

    • Article

      Don’t Throw Away a $12.06M Estate Tax Exemption by Accident

      Apr 14, 2022

      The federal estate tax exemption and gift exemption is presently $12.06 million. A married couple can transfer $24.12 million to their children or loved ones free of tax with proper planning. The exemption is tied to inflation, so it will continue to

      3 min read

    • Article

      IRS Form W-4: How Many Allowances Should I Claim?

      May 9, 2019

      My son recently sent me a text asking, "Is it better to claim 1 or 0 allowances?" He was starting a new job that day, so I instantly knew he needed guidance on how to fill out a W-4 form. That's the IRS form you use to let your boss know how much fed

      6 min read

    • Article

      Don’t Subpoena Me, Bro

      Jun 20, 2017

      Don’t Subpoena Me, Bro
      5 min read

    • Article

      What Happens To Your Debt When You Die

      Jun 18, 2021

      IT ISN’T something that we like thinking about but even after we die there are still expenses that need to be paid – and these expenses increase when you have debt. This week we take a look at what happens to your debt in the event of your passing.

      3 min read

    • Article

      The Lowdown on Living Trusts

      Mar 24, 2022

      If you’re putting together an estate plan, you have no doubt heard about the benefits of a living trust. Assets placed in a trust won’t go through probate, a time-consuming and potentially costly process. In addition, a living trust, also known as a

      5 min read

    • Article

      Are You Ready for Longevity? 4 Steps to Take Now

      Aug 13, 2018

      Did you know that a non-smoking 65-year-old woman today has a 50% chance of living until 88? A non-smoking 65-year-old man has a 50% chance of living until 85? That's how life expectancy works - the longer you live, the more likely you will live lon

      4 min read

    • Article

      Federal Judge Rules Against Imprisoning Those Who Can't Pay Court Fees

      Aug 6, 2018

      Civil rights lawyers won a ruling that Orleans Parish judges cannot impose fines on defendants without holding a "neutral forum" to learn about their ability to pay.

      3 min read

    Related categories

    Reviews for Death Grip

    0 ratings

    0 ratings0 reviews

    What did you think?

    Tap to rate

    Review must be at least 10 words

      Book preview

      Death Grip - Clint Bolick

      Index

      INTRODUCTION AND

      ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

      HERE’S A CIVICS STUMPER

      for you: can you name the three protections provided by the Fourteenth Amendment?

      Most Americans likely could not identify any of them without additional prompting. But even among people who are possessed of substantial civic knowledge, I’d wager the vast majority could name only two: due process of law and equal protection under the law. They’re pretty famous. Even those who don’t know they are part of the Fourteenth Amendment are likely to recognize the terms and know that they are important constitutional rights Americans possess.

      It’s the Fourteenth Amendment’s remaining protection that would completely stump most Americans, even if it were listed among multiple-choice options: it’s the guarantee that states may not abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. If you asked the typical person on the street—indeed, even the typical lawyer—where the provision comes from or what it means, most wouldn’t have a clue.

      How could two of the three provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment be so well-known while the other is so obscure? Especially when they appear within the same sentence? Deepening the mystery, the privileges or immunities clause is listed first among the trilogy of Fourteenth Amendment protections, suggesting that those who wrote it intended that the provision meant something important. Moreover, among the three protections, it is the only one that on its face protects substantive rights—that is, privileges or immunities that states may not abridge. By contrast, the other provisions on their face do not impose substantive limits on government power, but rather instruct that states may not infringe upon life, liberty, or property without due process and that they are bound to provide all individuals with equal protection of the laws.

      The reason why Americans are familiar with due process and equal protection is that scores of court decisions have struck down laws as violations of those guarantees—including some of the most-famous cases of all time, such as Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade. Law students spend months studying those two provisions, and they are a core focus of the Constitutional Law portion of the bar examination.

      By contrast, cases involving the privileges or immunities clause are exceedingly rare and are almost never in the news. As a result, most law students spend a minute or two, if that, studying about the privileges or immunities clause. In fact, they are taught to forget it exists. Indeed, when I was studying for the California bar examination, the instructor told the students that there was only one thing they needed to know about the privileges or immunities clause: that it is never the correct answer to a bar exam question.

      How did such a seminal constitutional provision plummet to such jurisprudential depths? Most legal questions have complex answers—or at least lawyers who charge by the hour want you to think that they do—but the answer to this one is easy. Only a few years after the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted following the close of the Civil War, the U.S. Supreme Court drained the privileges or immunities clause of nearly all its meaning in one of the worst decisions in the history of American law, the aptly named Slaughter-House Cases.[1]

      In that 1873 decision, the Supreme Court by a 5–4 vote—highly unusual in those days—upheld a bribery-procured Louisiana slaughterhouse monopoly that had been challenged by a group of butchers whose businesses were jeopardized. In that decision, the court discovered a new way to amend the Constitution: by judicial fiat. The majority ruled that the privileges or immunities clause added almost nothing to the handful of rights protected against abuse by the states in the original Constitution. By that decision, one of the most important and beneficial products of the Civil War—a revolutionary constitutional provision intended to protect civil rights against oppression by state governments—was nullified. So while myriad cases since the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted have invoked the equal protection and due process clauses, until recently not a single U.S. Supreme Court decision invoked the privileges or immunities clause to strike down a law.

      The Slaughter-House Cases produced many unfortunate consequences, several of which will be discussed in the pages that follow. But foremost among them was the evisceration of one of the most sacred and central rights of Americans: economic liberty, the right to pursue a business or occupation free from arbitrary or excessive government regulation. Now, nearly a century and a half later, this right that many Americans deem fundamental enjoys virtually no legal protection whatsoever. If the government tries to take away someone’s welfare check, a Legal Services Corporation lawyer (your taxpayer dollars at work) can tie the government up in knots. But if the government decides to regulate your business out of existence—even for the benefit of a competitor—you have virtually no constitutional recourse.

      This state of affairs is particularly devastating for people at the bottom rungs of the economic ladder. The most pernicious regulatory barriers to opportunity are those that restrict entry into businesses and occupations that require little formal education or capital. Those regulations hinder meaningful participation in the mainstream economy, as well as upward economic mobility, to millions of economically disadvantaged Americans. At the same time, they limit market entry and inhibit competition at every level of the economy, as sophisticated business or labor interests manipulate government power to protect and enhance their economic positions to the detriment of others.

      The privileges or immunities clause was intended to provide legal recourse to individuals affected by such laws. But the clause was killed in its infancy. That is a perversion of American law. The time has come to correct it—to restore economic liberty to its rightful place among the most fundamental civil rights.

      The conditions for change may be ripe. Legal scholars on both sides of the philosophical spectrum have condemned the Slaughter-House Cases. Moreover, a majority of members of the current U.S. Supreme Court adhere to a philosophy of original intent, which opens them to arguments based on the intent of the Constitution’s framers.

      But it is a difficult task to overturn a longstanding precedent, even if it is obviously wrong. In particular, some conservative judges and scholars fear that breathing life into the privileges or immunities clause would open a Pandora’s box of judicial adventurism. Yet that fear is nothing compared to the real-world harm inflicted upon Americans whose economic liberty is denied by government.

      In 1984, Judge (now Justice) Antonin Scalia debated libertarian law professor Richard Epstein on this very topic at the Cato Institute. Scalia argued that it was premature to consider restoring judicial protection for economic liberty; important groundwork first must be laid. [T]he task of creating what I might call a constitutional ethos of economic liberty is no easy one, he warned. But it is the first task.[2]

      I took Scalia’s words as a clarion call. As a young lawyer only a few years out of law school, I set myself on a goal so audaciously hopeful that it would make Barack Obama proud (if he liked free enterprise): to overturn the Slaughter-House Cases. With the encouragement of my boss and mentor—the chairman of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Clarence Thomas, who would go on to become an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court—I wrote a book called Changing Course that sketched out the idea. Even though hardly anyone read the book, the idea was interesting enough to the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation to provide a seed grant to Landmark Legal Foundation to put me to work. And the quest to overturn Slaughter-House and restore economic liberty as a fundamental civil right began in earnest.

      Since that time, I have had the great privilege and opportunity to litigate many economic liberty cases (several of them described in Part 4) at the Institute for Justice, which I co-founded in 1990, and since 2007 at the Goldwater Institute in Phoenix. It has been gratifying to see talented attorneys such as Clark Neily at the Institute for Justice and Timothy Sandefur at Pacific Legal Foundation take on this task as well. We still have a long way to go, but our successes so far in the courts of law and the court of public opinion suggest that we are doing something more than tilting at windmills. Ultimately, our goal is to convince the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit the Slaughter-House Cases and to invest the privileges or immunities clause with the meaning intended by its framers.

      The four parts of this book proceed as follows. In part 1, I sketch the sorry state of economic liberty in the nation that stands as a beacon of opportunity to the rest of the world. In part 2, I examine the history and intent of the Fourteenth Amendment and the judicial nullification of the privileges or immunities clause in the Slaughter-House Cases. Part 3 examines the horrible aftermath of Slaughter-House, whose tragic consequences continue to manifest themselves today. For readers who slog through those three depressing sections, the payoff is part 4, which describes the campaign to restore economic liberty as a fundamental civil right, so far with limited but growing success.

      I am enormously grateful to the

      Enjoying the preview?
      Page 1 of 1