Sunday Laws

[Douglas Laycock]

I do not know such a history, and anecdotal impressions are no substitute for careful study.  But it seems pretty clear to me that the Sunday closing laws were abandoned for political and economic reasons, not constitutional reasons.  They lost support as the population became more secular, and the inconvenience of shutting everything down for a day became greater as women joined the labor force.  The opposition grew and the support waned.   

I remember repeal in Texas, in the 1980s; there were conservative pastors involved in the debate, supported by Mom & Pop stores, big department stores, and I think the Retail Clerks union (can't swear to that), and opposed by discount stores and by a large chunk of the consumer population who were tired of the inconvenience of having so many stores closed on Sunday. 

Quoting Mark Graber <mgraber at gvpt.umd.edu>:

> Does anyone know of a good article or book section on the history of 
> Sunday laws, in particular on why they were abandoned after being 
> sustained by the Supreme Court (a great case study, I suspect, for 
> the constitution outside of the courts).
>
> Much thanks.
>
> Mark A. Graber
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw[1]
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
> private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can 
> (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
>
>

Douglas Laycock
Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law
University of Michigan Law School
625 S. State St.
Ann Arbor, MI  48109-1215
  734-647-9713

Links:
------
[1] http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20090521/93c136fa/attachment.htm>