protection of a basic interest of society” (244). The decision of the Hughes Court of the mid 20th century was a large contrast to the Marshallian era of the early 1800s.In comparing the two cases with one another, the similarities are easily apparent and numerous. Both the Marshall Court and the Hughes Court dealt with the contract clause being violated by new laws that were passed by state legislatures. Both courts knew the state laws were altering the contracts that were in question, but it was the distinct ideologies of each court that caused the difference of the outcomes in the two cases. In the Court that decided against the New Hampshire legislature, it brought the Marshallian view of separating the private and public, with more favoritism towards the private sector. The Marshallian ideology also heavily depended on the words of the Constitution and felt that if there were any exceptions, it would have been written by the Founding Fathers. Over a hundred years later, the Hughes Court would represent something different compared to the Marshall Court. The Hughes Court would usher in the idea of legal realism and political fairness. They believed that the private and public sectors of society were not necessarily distinct and that a state can sometimes interfere if they act rationally and conceive a legitimate end. If the two courts switched cases, the twelve trustees at Dartmouth would be sitting with nine new coworkers and John Blaisdell would be found homeless because not only did the Courts differ in opinion, but also because of the new time period they would be in.The Court’s reliance and enforcement of the contract clause diminished in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries because when the Constitution was finally ratified, the government emphasized the contract clause during the late 1700’s so that the states would not impede the growth of young businesses. This protection from state contr...
