I found this reading to have deep implementations in today's climate both legally and politically. As discussions regarding voting rights, gerrymandering, disinformation, and systemic inequality deep, I found that Stones insight regarding courts actively protecting the foundations of democracy while deferring economic policy to provide a sense of framework. Threats to discrete and insular minorities and the loss of democratic participation remain as alarming issues. So, debates over Voter ID laws and legislation targeting specific marginalized communities prove Stones tiered political approach - allowing us to understand how some laws can face more scrutiny than others, back then and now. During a time like this when democracy is under strain, this footnote shows that not all the laws we see have the same impact on self governance and that courts have the right to intervene when these personal rights are impacted.
I completely agree—Footnote 4 remains one of the clearest early acknowledgments that not all laws carry the same democratic weight. Your point about voter ID laws is especially apt: these are precisely the kinds of measures that may appear neutral on the surface but, in practice, undermine the political participation of marginalized groups. Stone’s framework gives us a constitutional lens for recognizing when democratic processes are skewed, and reminds us that judicial review isn’t just about protecting rights in the abstract but about safeguarding the conditions of meaningful self-governance.
"For democratic government to work, citizens needed access to information, the ability to participate in politics, and protection from majoritarian oppression. Economic regulations, by contrast, were the product of democratic governance, not its precondition." This quote from the post truck me. As inequality rises in the United States at the same time as spiking political polarization, it seems less and less like economic regulations are simply a product of a stable democracy and not a precondition for it. Can what falls under strict, intermediate, and rational basis scrutiny change over time and according to national circumstance?
Great point—Stone assumed democracy could handle economic rules on its own, but rising inequality and polarization raise the question of whether basic economic security is actually a prerequisite for democracy. The tiers of scrutiny aren’t fixed in the Constitution; they’re tools the Court created and has tweaked over time (like adding intermediate scrutiny for sex discrimination). In theory, economic rights could get more protection if society and the courts start treating them as essential to democratic life.
I found this reading to have deep implementations in today's climate both legally and politically. As discussions regarding voting rights, gerrymandering, disinformation, and systemic inequality deep, I found that Stones insight regarding courts actively protecting the foundations of democracy while deferring economic policy to provide a sense of framework. Threats to discrete and insular minorities and the loss of democratic participation remain as alarming issues. So, debates over Voter ID laws and legislation targeting specific marginalized communities prove Stones tiered political approach - allowing us to understand how some laws can face more scrutiny than others, back then and now. During a time like this when democracy is under strain, this footnote shows that not all the laws we see have the same impact on self governance and that courts have the right to intervene when these personal rights are impacted.
I completely agree—Footnote 4 remains one of the clearest early acknowledgments that not all laws carry the same democratic weight. Your point about voter ID laws is especially apt: these are precisely the kinds of measures that may appear neutral on the surface but, in practice, undermine the political participation of marginalized groups. Stone’s framework gives us a constitutional lens for recognizing when democratic processes are skewed, and reminds us that judicial review isn’t just about protecting rights in the abstract but about safeguarding the conditions of meaningful self-governance.
"For democratic government to work, citizens needed access to information, the ability to participate in politics, and protection from majoritarian oppression. Economic regulations, by contrast, were the product of democratic governance, not its precondition." This quote from the post truck me. As inequality rises in the United States at the same time as spiking political polarization, it seems less and less like economic regulations are simply a product of a stable democracy and not a precondition for it. Can what falls under strict, intermediate, and rational basis scrutiny change over time and according to national circumstance?
Great point—Stone assumed democracy could handle economic rules on its own, but rising inequality and polarization raise the question of whether basic economic security is actually a prerequisite for democracy. The tiers of scrutiny aren’t fixed in the Constitution; they’re tools the Court created and has tweaked over time (like adding intermediate scrutiny for sex discrimination). In theory, economic rights could get more protection if society and the courts start treating them as essential to democratic life.