Suzanna Sherry

Document Type

Article

Publication Title

Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy

Publication Date

2016

Page Number

559

Disciplines

Law

Abstract

This Essay, written for a symposium asking “Is the Rational Basis Test Unconstitutional?,” defends the bifurcated-scrutiny approach of Carolene Products and its famous footnote four. A growing cadre of conservative and libertarian scholars has called for increased scrutiny of legislation affecting economic rights. The Essay marshals four types of arguments to suggest that regulation of market activities should not be subject to the same, heightened, level of scrutiny as legislation affecting personal rights: moral arguments, constitutive arguments, consequentialist arguments, and arguments resting on the likelihood of illicit legislative motives.

Download

Included in

Law Commons

Share

COinS
 
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.