Calder v Bull (p. 437)

Let's start today's class with a discussion of Calder v. Bull, a case from 1798 that features an interesting debate between Justice Chase and Justice Iredell about natural law and unenumerated liberties in the Constitution of 1789.

Justice Chase proposes that the Court should protect individuals against State legislatures based upon “great first principles of the social compact” and  “ general principles of law and reason.” p. 437-438 What are the terms of the social compact? What are the general principles of law and reason?

 Justice Iredell disagrees with Chase and argues that the Supreme Court is without power to strike down state legislation based upon its view of natural justice: "[S]ome speculative jurists have held that a legislative act against natural justice must, in itself, be void; but I cannot think that, under such a government, any court of justice would possess a power to declare it so..." (p. 439)

Whose idea of “natural justice” should be adopted by judges?  Theirs?  That of the State legislature whose law is being challenged?  Mine?  Those recognized by the faculties of elite law schools?  “Sez who?”  P. 408

What does this ancient debate between Chase and Iredell remind you of?