The Constitution and the New Deal [Hardcover]

G. Edward White (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: December 15, 2000 | ISBN-10: 0674003411 | ISBN-13: 978-0674003415

In a powerful new narrative, G. Edward White challenges the reigning understanding of twentieth-century Supreme Court decisions, particularly in the New Deal period. He does this by rejecting such misleading characterizations as "liberal," "conservative," and "reactionary," and by reexamining several key topics in constitutional law.

Through a close reading of sources and analysis of the minds and sensibilities of a wide array of justices, including Holmes, Brandeis, Sutherland, Butler, Van Devanter, and McReynolds, White rediscovers the world of early-twentieth-century constitutional law and jurisprudence. He provides a counter-story to that of the triumphalist New Dealers. The deep conflicts over constitutional ideas that took place in the first half of the twentieth century are sensitively recovered, and the morality play of good liberals vs. mossbacks is replaced. This is the only thoroughly researched and fully realized history of the constitutional thought and practice of all the Supreme Court justices during the turbulent period that made America modern.

(20010701)

Editorial Reviews

From Library Journal

White (law and history, Univ. of Virginia), the author of several books on constitutional law, most notably The Marshall Court and Cultural Change, 1815-1835, offers a revisionist analysis of early 20th-century constitutional law and culture concerning New Deal "constitutional revolution" and Court-packing narratives. Emphasizing U.S. Supreme Court political economy cases from the 1920s through the 1940s, he advances "an alternate explanation for 'revolutionary'changes in the Supreme Court's interpretation of constitutional provisions." White challenges the conventional account of other historians of early 20th-century constitutional history and the New Deal "constitutional revolution" in modern politics. He pays particular attention to changes in the Supreme Court Justices' attitudes toward constitutional review of the nation's governing principles. White's broader, alternate picture of New Deal constitutional jurisprudence is a worthy challenge to conventional historical and jurisprudential interpretations of the New Deal. Highly recommended for academic libraries. Steven Puro, St. Louis Univ.
Copyright 2000 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Booklist

White's expressed intent is to complicate conventional historical narratives on American jurisprudence and constitutional law by noting the starting premises, if not biases, of those earlier narratives. He explores the role of the legal elite--who believed that ordinary rules did not apply to them--in interpreting the constitution during the New Deal era. But White is primarily concerned with the conventional accounts of the New Deal's reflecting a new era in constitutional law and interpretation that have influenced U.S. governance, for example, a more activist role for the federal government as economic regulator and an aggressive executive branch role in foreign policy. White asserts that historical analysis does not support that these changes in constitutional law were exclusively or predominately attributed to the New Deal era. Yet, the conventional accounts continue to resonate because of a general perception of the New Deal as a symbolic historic episode, with strong cultural associations that tend to distort historical realities. This is a worthy book not only for readers interested in constitutional history but for those interested in the cultural complexities of the U.S. Vernon Ford
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 400 pages
• Publisher: Harvard University Press (December 15, 2000)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0674003411
• ISBN-13: 978-0674003415
• Product Dimensions: 9.6 x 6.5 x 1.3 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.1 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 4.7 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (3 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #2,480,635 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

4 of 4 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A Different Perspective on the New Deal, May 2, 2006

By 

Ronald H. Clark (WASHINGTON, DC USA) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (TOP 1000 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)   

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: The Constitution and the New Deal (Paperback)

Any book by Ted White at UVA is deserving of the most careful examination--he is one of our leading constitutional/legal historians and students of the legal process. In this challenging volume, White argues that much of the conventional interpretation of the New Deal and its impact upon the development of constitutional law has been mistaken. In short, White argues that many of the developments in constitutional law that we associate with the New Deal and Court Packing (including "the switch in time that saved nine") actually had been in the works for years before, and Court Packing was more a product of on-going changes of long duration than a cause of them.

The 376 pages of text and notes that White masses to support his argument are, I think, some of his best writing--and that is saying a lot. Particularly, the chapters on administrative agencies and the development of administrative law; free speech; the ALI and restatements; substantive due process"; and the "canonization and demonization of judges" reflect White at his best: incisive in analysis, reflecting total command of the pertinent literature, skillfully argued and well developed.

The problem I encountered was that I nonetheless found his central thesis unpersuasive. This is despite the fact that a group centered at UVA, including Charles McCurdy and Barry Cushman ("Rethinking the New Deal Court"), have written outstanding revisionist material seeking to reorient our view toward the New Deal and the development of constitutonal law reaching back to the late 19th century (McCurdy on Justice Field, e.g.). But White has some problems in selling his thesis: (a) he tends to equate the New Deal too much with Court Packing; (b) he dismisses behavioralist explanations for judicial behavior despite his apparent lack of knowledge about the solid work that political scientists have done in this area since the late 1940's; (c) he tends to utilize ambiguous terms like "essentialist" without offering definitions; and (d) he has a tendency to set up "straw men" and knock them while avoiding more critical issues. The central argument also shifts at points: the New Deal had no effect, then perhaps some effect, and then was one of several forces effecting changes.

Nonetheless, this book does what good revisionist writing seeks to accomplish: it forces one to re-examine fundamental premises and either defend them or accept the new contentions. In any regard, the individual chapters are worthy of serious attention even if you ignore White's central thesis. A book well worth reading if one is interested in this period and the development of constitutional law.

3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Vast Improvement Over Existing New Deal Literature, September 4, 2003

By 

From The Independent Review (Oakland, CA) - See all my reviews

This review is from: The Constitution and the New Deal (Paperback)

"In his rewarding book, "The Constitution and the New Deal," G. Edward White takes a penetrating look at the conventional account of New Deal constitutionalism and concludes that it needs to be substantially revamped. He maintains that the transformation of constitutional law in the twentieth century was part of a more basic shift in thinking about the nature of law and that it cannot be explained in terms of a single dramatic event such as the Court-packing plan. He emphasizes that doctrinal change was gradual and that it started long before the political victory of the New Deal."

"White has unquestionably offered a far more nuanced and compelling examination of the relationship between New Deal and constitutional development than that provided by standard accounts. He has moved beyond the tired narrative of "good" liberals victorious over "bad" conservatives. His work raises a number of issues well worth exploring."

"White's thoughtful volume is a vast improvement over much of the existing literature on the constitutional dimensions of the New Deal era. It deserves a large audience. Still, one might suggest that in his well-founded desire to stamp out the myths associated with the New Deal, White unduly downplays the New Deal as a significant turning point in constitutional history. The New Deal may not have brought about a complete change in constitutional theories, and some of the legal doctrines it produced may have been long in gestation and only coincidentally to have come to a head in the 1930s. The fact remains, however, that for better or worse it was responsible for bringing these issues to a head and did so in a way that has shaped all subsequent constitutional discourse."

-From "The Independent Review," Spring 2002

3 of 4 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Ably done and of high interest, June 16, 2002

By 

Schmerguls "schmerguls" (Sioux City, Ia USA) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)   

This review is from: The Constitution and the New Deal (Paperback)

I was not going to review this book, since I doubt my qualifications, but since there is no review posted I will tell you what I thought of the book. The author takes up very interesting topics, such as, e.g., the expansion of the president's power in foreign affairs--powered by Justice Sutherland--and the "canonization" of Supreme Court Justices Holmes and Brandeis and the "demonization" of Justices Van Devanter, Sutherland, Butler and McReynolds. Some of his discussion was hard to follow. He throws around terms like, for instance, "essentialist." I guess my study of philosophy and jurisprudence is too far in the past and I wish he had done a better job explaining terms such as that. I enjoyed about 75% of the book, and am now interested in any rejoinder to the book's claims that may have come out since it was published.