Undermining The Constitution
A HISTORY OF LAWLESS GOVERNMENT
V
FOLLOWING THE INCOME-TAX AMENDMENT IN 1918, THE NEXT VIOLENCE TO CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE WAS UNDERTAKEN IN 1916 BY A SOCIALIST-MINDED GROUP SEEKING TO BREAK DOWN THE TENTH AMENDMENT AND HAVE WASHINGTON ASSUME POLICE POWER IN THE STATES OVER PERSONS UNDER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS
As late as 1916, when the attempt at undermining the States by transgressing the Tenth Amendment was undertaken by a very formidable and persistent aggregation of forces, the assailants were three times hurled back in a battle which lasted twelve years. But the contest was close.
Under the direction of the American translator of the writings of the patriarchs of Communism, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, there was begun in 1916 an extraordinary attempt to break down the constitutional structure of the United States and thereby curtail the liberties of the American.
This woman pushed a bill through Congress which would forbid the moving in interstate commerce of manufactured articles into the making of which the work of persons under the age of 18 years had entered. The ostensible idea was to protect the young from oppression by ruthless employers and uncivilized fathers and mothers who were taking wages from the servitude of their children. From the strident propaganda that was organized and turned loose, a stranger just arriving on the planet would conclude that parenthood on the Earth was covetous wickedness itself.
But even had the States been delinquent in the exercise of their police power to guard the health, education and welfare of childhood, that could not have conferred power on Congress to assume jurisdiction. It had no place in the field of the States. It has been shown from authorities that the States cannot abdicate their police powers and that Congress cannot take them over.
Had there been a child-labor evil -- and there was none of magnitude -- it was for the people at home to make their legislatures take police action.
But, as before said, the "ballyhoo" was so overwhelming and ceaseless that many good but uninformed people were taken off their feet, and they gave way to tears for the American child so victimized by his greedy and heartless parents.
Why did men representing the people of the States in Congress vote for a bill by which the Nation would usurp power not granted to it by the Constitution, and the States would lose by abandonment powers inherent in them for the care and protection of youth?
Why did a President with an Attorney General to advise him sign such a bill? What is an Attorney General for?
Congress could not by its act gather to itself police power over "the health, morals, safety, education and general well-being of the people." Nor could the States surrender their local police sovereignty to Washington. That was decided (219 U. S. 270) in 1911 by the Supreme Court of the United States.
Of course, when an employer and a father both attacked the act as against liberty, the Supreme Court in 1918 held (247 V. S. 251) that, although it pretended to be a regulation of commerce between the States, it was in reality a seizure from the States of their police power, in violation of the Tenth Amendment, and therefore unconstitutional.
Did that stop the constitutional illiterates representing the States in the Congress in their push to degrade their commonwealths?
No.
But when a citizen affected by the legislation attacked it, the Supreme Court in 1922 held (259 U. S. 20) that as the tax imposed was intended to prevent the manufacture by youth, it would also put an end thereby to the revenue, for which reason it could not be treated as a revenue act. It was palpably another lawless attempt by Congress to take from under the police power of the States the supervision and protection of youth.[1]
Neither did that decision stop the constitutional illiterates of the States in Congress in their determination -- or in the determination of the Communist-minded and unschooled sentimentalists who were lashing them -- to weaken their commonwealths and enlarge the central Government.
The energy and fury behind this movement of Communism, supported by weeping women and educators, was frightening.
1. This decision by Chief Justice Taft, that a pretended tax law which is not for revenue is unconstitutional and fraudulent, disposes of the preposterous proposition of President Franklin D. Roosevelt to Congress, namely, that taxes be made so heavy as to permit no income above $25,000 a year, and that all incomes be prevented from being "too high."
It also disposes of several poorly considered dicta of "progressive" judges, that taxes may be levied for regulatory and punitive purposes.
It was immediately rejected by enough legislative bodies in the States to defeat it, but every time new legislatures were elected the promoters again urged adoption.
During the pendency of the proposal before the legislatures of the States, 20 of them repeatedly rejected it, in Massachusetts 8 times, in New York 7 times, in Texas and South Dakota 6 times, and in 3 other States 5 times.
In 23 instances attempts were made in Congress to modify the resolution so as to draw in some of its reckless implications, but they were voted down -- sometimes howled down without a record vote.
When President Roosevelt took office he immediately urged legislatures to adopt it, which course was an illegal interference by the Executive with the functions of the States. It was also contrary to his declarations as Governor of New York. Some States acted as he requested; but when he telegraphed "my native State" to ratify the proposal, the legislature of New York promptly rejected it.
The rejection of the proposal by the legislatures shows that many Congressmen were as badly informed of the wishes of their constituents as they were on the Constitution.
It may be that the defeat which Congress suffered in 1918 in the first decision of the Supreme Court respecting Child Labor was the cause of its classing in the Revenue Act of 1919 the compensation of the judges as income subject to taxation and thereby reducing their compensation, which the Constitution forbids.
The way to cure the weakness is by requiring the schools, colleges, and universities to make everyone graduating a sound constitutional scholar.
About forty of our States have laws requiring the teaching of the Constitution of the United States in public and private schools, but in not one State is our Great Charter thoroughly taught as a separate study to the youth who are to govern the land and hold the destinies of the Republic.
As late as 1916, when the attempt at undermining the States by transgressing the Tenth Amendment was undertaken by a very formidable and persistent aggregation of forces, the assailants were three times hurled back in a battle which lasted twelve years. But the contest was close.
The Judiciary in defense of the Constitution
Congress passed two unconstitutional bills and the President, presumably advised by the Attorney General, signed them. Constitutional government, and the Tenth Amendment particularly, were saved by the Supreme Court.Under the direction of the American translator of the writings of the patriarchs of Communism, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, there was begun in 1916 an extraordinary attempt to break down the constitutional structure of the United States and thereby curtail the liberties of the American.
This woman pushed a bill through Congress which would forbid the moving in interstate commerce of manufactured articles into the making of which the work of persons under the age of 18 years had entered. The ostensible idea was to protect the young from oppression by ruthless employers and uncivilized fathers and mothers who were taking wages from the servitude of their children. From the strident propaganda that was organized and turned loose, a stranger just arriving on the planet would conclude that parenthood on the Earth was covetous wickedness itself.
Strategy of Communism in 1916
According to the "Woman Patriot," a paper then published in the City of Washington, the promoter of the Child Labor Law had boasted that in her legislative drives she never let appear on the front of the movement the real intent of the propagandists. That is the basic strategy of Communism. The Child Labor Act had no relation to child labor, because there was in objectionable volume no such thing. After the census of 1920 the Department of Labor made a boastful report to the effect that since the taking of the last decennial census so many laws of States had lengthened the months of school required; had set such severe conditions for a youth to qualify for work during vacation, had so completely forbidden work by minors in theatres and like places and prohibited working with dangerous machinery, that the so-called child-labor evil had been all but wiped out.Had there been a child-labor evil -- and there was none of magnitude -- it was for the people at home to make their legislatures take police action.
But, as before said, the "ballyhoo" was so overwhelming and ceaseless that many good but uninformed people were taken off their feet, and they gave way to tears for the American child so victimized by his greedy and heartless parents.
No child-labor problem in 1916
There being no child-labor problem to solve, it is manifest that the undertaking was to remove the youth of the land away from the police control of the States -- as the National Labor Relations Act, 19 years later, removed all workers -- children and adults -- of the country out of local jurisdiction -- and transfer authority over them to the central Government at Washington. Making the central Government top-heavy would cause it in time to collapse of its own weight, and the collapse of the finest specimen of Government securing liberty and property has been the object of Communism for many years.
Governor Roosevelt denounced misuse of Commerce Clause
The use of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to bolster the act of Congress was one of those lawlessnesses which Governor Franklin D. Roosevelt of New York denounced in the strongest terms. And when he became President he broke all records in promoting this sort of legislative malpractice!Why did men representing the people of the States in Congress vote for a bill by which the Nation would usurp power not granted to it by the Constitution, and the States would lose by abandonment powers inherent in them for the care and protection of youth?
Why did a President with an Attorney General to advise him sign such a bill? What is an Attorney General for?
Congress could not by its act gather to itself police power over "the health, morals, safety, education and general well-being of the people." Nor could the States surrender their local police sovereignty to Washington. That was decided (219 U. S. 270) in 1911 by the Supreme Court of the United States.
Of course, when an employer and a father both attacked the act as against liberty, the Supreme Court in 1918 held (247 V. S. 251) that, although it pretended to be a regulation of commerce between the States, it was in reality a seizure from the States of their police power, in violation of the Tenth Amendment, and therefore unconstitutional.
Did that stop the constitutional illiterates representing the States in the Congress in their push to degrade their commonwealths?
No.
Congress shifted from Commerce
Clause to Taxing Clause
In 1919 Congress passed a Child Labor Tax Act and the President signed it, presumably with the approval of the Attorney General By that enactment a destructive tax was placed on the product of child labor, so heavy that the manufacturer could not sell the goods in competition with other makers. The Commerce Clause having failed to support the other act, Congress resorted to the Taxing Clause.But when a citizen affected by the legislation attacked it, the Supreme Court in 1922 held (259 U. S. 20) that as the tax imposed was intended to prevent the manufacture by youth, it would also put an end thereby to the revenue, for which reason it could not be treated as a revenue act. It was palpably another lawless attempt by Congress to take from under the police power of the States the supervision and protection of youth.[1]
Neither did that decision stop the constitutional illiterates of the States in Congress in their determination -- or in the determination of the Communist-minded and unschooled sentimentalists who were lashing them -- to weaken their commonwealths and enlarge the central Government.
The energy and fury behind this movement of Communism, supported by weeping women and educators, was frightening.
1. This decision by Chief Justice Taft, that a pretended tax law which is not for revenue is unconstitutional and fraudulent, disposes of the preposterous proposition of President Franklin D. Roosevelt to Congress, namely, that taxes be made so heavy as to permit no income above $25,000 a year, and that all incomes be prevented from being "too high."
It also disposes of several poorly considered dicta of "progressive" judges, that taxes may be levied for regulatory and punitive purposes.
Members of Congress make third
effort to degrade their States
Having failed twice in "dashing itself against the imprisoning walls of the Constitution," as Bryce described our legislative body, Congress proposed in 1924 an amendment to the Fundamental Law which would empower it to prohibit labor throughout the United States of persons under the age of 18 years.It was immediately rejected by enough legislative bodies in the States to defeat it, but every time new legislatures were elected the promoters again urged adoption.
During the pendency of the proposal before the legislatures of the States, 20 of them repeatedly rejected it, in Massachusetts 8 times, in New York 7 times, in Texas and South Dakota 6 times, and in 3 other States 5 times.
In 23 instances attempts were made in Congress to modify the resolution so as to draw in some of its reckless implications, but they were voted down -- sometimes howled down without a record vote.
When President Roosevelt took office he immediately urged legislatures to adopt it, which course was an illegal interference by the Executive with the functions of the States. It was also contrary to his declarations as Governor of New York. Some States acted as he requested; but when he telegraphed "my native State" to ratify the proposal, the legislature of New York promptly rejected it.
The rejection of the proposal by the legislatures shows that many Congressmen were as badly informed of the wishes of their constituents as they were on the Constitution.
Peril from uneducated public opinion
What insidious and unseen power could maintain for more than a dozen years that assault on the constitutional integrity of the United States? Why was there not force enough in public opinion to check Congress in its wayward course?It may be that the defeat which Congress suffered in 1918 in the first decision of the Supreme Court respecting Child Labor was the cause of its classing in the Revenue Act of 1919 the compensation of the judges as income subject to taxation and thereby reducing their compensation, which the Constitution forbids.
The way to cure the weakness is by requiring the schools, colleges, and universities to make everyone graduating a sound constitutional scholar.
About forty of our States have laws requiring the teaching of the Constitution of the United States in public and private schools, but in not one State is our Great Charter thoroughly taught as a separate study to the youth who are to govern the land and hold the destinies of the Republic.
Could you believe this?
To show that references herein to constitutional illiteracy are not extravagant or unjust, it is mentioned that in March, 1947, a dispatch from Washington said that a member of the House of Representatives from the great State of Illinois and a member from the great State of Louisiana introduced bills making it a felony to try to bribe an athlete. There had recently been much in print about crookedness in baseball and other sports. The boy or girl leaving school before reaching High, as over 16 per cent of them do (while half of the 1,700,000 leave before the end of the second year), to govern the United States and direct its destiny, should know better than that. It is an indictment of schools, colleges, and universities that members of Congress should introduce such bills. Felonies fall within the police power of the States.
The man power of Congress
has undergone change
Congress has no Sumner, no Conkling, no Cameron, no Hoar, no Ingalls, no duplicates of the many old worthies -- chosen for the Senate by legislatures instead of popular vote -- with experience in taking the President by the sleeve and showing him back to his place.
When the States take back their Union they should tolerate no more weak Congresses. It is discreditable to them as governmental entities and to their people entrusted with the present and the future of the Republic that there should have been Congresses deserving of the epithet of "rubber stamp."
General and thorough constitutional
education only hope
They should require that every man and woman appearing to register as a voter present a card showing membership in One Great Union, a certificate from the County Superintendent of Schools that the bearer has passed a thorough examination in writing on both the History and the Constitution of the United States. The requirement of an examination in writing would disqualify, properly, the illiterates who control the great cities which drag down the States. The predicament of the State with an unclean city is likened in the memoirs of Senator Hoar of Massachusetts to the eagle in Tennyson, "caught by his talons in carrion and unable to rise and soar."
It would also repair the damage done by the delinquent States which frustrated the Australian ballot[2] and gave to the political bosses in the cities for the use of their illiterates the "straight ticket" -- and too often the control of the Presidential election.2. The Australian ballot groups the names of all the candidates for one office in one block, all the names of candidates for another office in another block, and so on. There can be no "straight ticket." If the voter is too illiterate to find the names of those for whom he would vote, that is to the advantage of the country.
Penalties are visited upon the citizens who do not vote unless they present valid excuses. The Australian Embassy said that in 1943 the vote in the Federal election was 96.3 per cent of the electors. All the States in Australia have compulsory voting laws.
In our election in 1948 only 47,500,000 persons voted, although, according to the Bureau of the Census, there were 95,000,000 eligible to vote.
Ohio adopted in 1949 a form of ballot to put an end to the "straight ticket." That looks like sunrise.
Penalties are visited upon the citizens who do not vote unless they present valid excuses. The Australian Embassy said that in 1943 the vote in the Federal election was 96.3 per cent of the electors. All the States in Australia have compulsory voting laws.
In our election in 1948 only 47,500,000 persons voted, although, according to the Bureau of the Census, there were 95,000,000 eligible to vote.
Ohio adopted in 1949 a form of ballot to put an end to the "straight ticket." That looks like sunrise.
The rescue of the Union by the States and the preservation of it perpetually is that easy.
Spinsters worry about Maternity and Infancy
While the proponents of the Child Labor Acts and the proposed Child Labor Amendment drove their measures through Congress, like-minded groups "put over" in 1921 An Act for the Promotion of the Welfare and Hygiene of Maternity and Infancy, and for Other Purposes.
In a strong argument against the power of Congress to pass such a bill under the Constitution, Senator Reed of Missouri read the catalogue of the names of the women throughout the land leading the move toward centralism -- and not one of them was married!
The law expired by limitation in 1929 after costing the taxpayers $11,000,000. The American Medical Association reported that not one new idea was developed by the expensive experiment. It is the only legislation of the socialistic sort from which Congress eventually backed away. A constitutional amendment may someday wipe out the others.
Had the Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction of two cases brought to test the validity of this Maternity Act, instead of questioning the right of the plaintiffs (262 U. S. 447), and had it shown for permanency, after the manner of John Marshall, the line between the power of the Nation and that of the States respecting such subjects, then A Bill to Alleviate the Hazards of Old Age, Unemployment, Illness, and Dependency, to Establish a Social Insurance Board in the Department of Labor, to Raise Revenue, and for Other Purposes, along with other kindred measures of the "New Deal," might never have been attempted.
A Judiciary without statesmanship to foresee the consequences to the Republic of a decision is not what the writers of the Constitution designed.
Where the States might
have been constructively busy
While the representatives of the States in Congress were passing unconstitutional bills to deprive their commonwealths of police power over youth, maternity, and infancy, and proposing an amendment which the legislatures of the States rejected, many times by some of the States, the members of the legislatures were, seemingly, so occupied at home with building debt that they, also, were at fault regarding the constitutional position and the obligations of their States.
A notable illustration of this is in their failure to take hold of the matter of divorce, a subject of police which our "centralists" have for a long time been asking Washington to regulate. It has been before the public for a quarter of a century or more, and in January, 1950, it was discussed in a meeting of workers for improved social conditions. The Committee on Uniform State Laws of the American Bar Association, which framed bills on many subjects acceptable to all the legislatures for enactment, gave this problem up.
Of course, it is a subject for the States. Massachusetts long ago settled the question for itself, and all the other States need to do is to copy the statute of Massachusetts, which was upheld (188 U. S. 14) by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1903.
How Massachusetts laid down the law
The General Court (legislature) of Massachusetts declared that a decree of divorce granted to a citizen of that State by a court of another State would be valid in Massachusetts when the foreign court should have had jurisdiction of both parties; but that when an inhabitant of Massachusetts should go to another jurisdiction for a divorce for a cause arising in Massachusetts when both parties are domiciled there, or for a cause which would not authorize a divorce in Massachusetts, a decree in such a case would have no effect in that commonwealth.
The Supreme Court of the United States held that law not repugnant to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, requiring the judicial proceedings and public acts of one State to be given effect in all others. Massachusetts was not obliged to give credit to a decree to one of its citizens when obtained against its public policy.
Wherein the decree was void
An inhabitant of Massachusetts went to South Dakota and obtained a decree of divorce in a suit in which his wife did not appear. Because the court had no jurisdiction of her the decree was of no force against her in Massachusetts. The husband returned to Massachusetts and remarried. Upon his death his first wife brought proceedings to be adjudged his widowed spouse and to be entitled to administer his estate and take his property. She won.
A similar statute of North Carolina, requiring a spouse domiciled in that State and desiring a decree of divorce, to apply to a court of North Carolina, was upheld by the Supreme Court (325 U. S. 226) in 1945, respecting decrees granted in Nevada when the applicants were not in law domiciled there. The domicile is the place where a person resides and intends to stay. Marrying in Nevada immediately after receiving decrees, the two spouses returned to North Carolina, They were arrested on the charge of bigamous cohabitation, the former spouse of each being resident in the State.
Plain cure tor laxity in divorces
So it would be a very simple undertaking for the legislatures of the States to copy the law of Massachusetts or that of North Carolina, both held constitutional.
That would bring down to earth the whole flock of those "birds of passage," as one court described them, who are pictured day by day at the airports taking flight for Nevada, Florida, or Mexico to get quick releases from the first, second, third, or fourth bondage.
Neglect of this subject has been one of the most censurable delinquencies of the States.
VI
THE LONG-PURSUED PURPOSE OF CONGRESS TO CROSS THE BARRIER OF THE TENTH AMENDMENT AND ENTER THE POLICE FIELD OF THE STATES, OFTEN CHECKED BY THE COURTS AND THE PEOPLE, WAS ACCOMPLISHED BY THE PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ACT OF 1921
in enacting the Packers and Stockyards Act of August 15, 1921, Congress did not move in obedience to powerful voting groups, as it did when it passed An Act for the Promotion of the Welfare and Hygiene of Maternity and Infancy, and for Other Purposes, and as it did in passing the bills on Child Labor.
It had no apparent reason for disregarding the Tenth Amendment and meddling in the duties of the States. There may have been complaints about the charges or services to the public of the stockyards at Chicago. If there had been dissatisfaction in that respect, the complaints should have been lodged with the commission of Illinois having authority. No default in the service of a corporation of a State could have given jurisdiction to Congress.
A belief of many dangerous to constitutionalism
While the opinion has often been expressed by persons otherwise well educated that if a State will not perform its duty, then let the Nation do it, the Constitution is not changeable that way: An amendment is necessary to a change. The idea, however, is startlingly prevalent. Multitudes believe that the National Government should take over more often than it has done.
Whatever the urge, Congress stepped into Illinois and took the control of the stockyards at Chicago away from the State. The sanction in 1922 by the Supreme Court (258 U. S. 495) of the action of Congress made the law effective as to stockyards on railroads in other States, and managing bureaus moved in.
The action by Congress was under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which empowers it "to regulate commerce among the several States." This clause and the General Welfare Clause are the two stand-bys for Congress when it finds the Tenth Amendment in its way of stripping the States and The People of their freedoms.
Governor Roosevelt condemned
congressional invasion of States
The Packers and Stockyards case was undoubtedly in the mind of Governor Franklin D. Roosevelt of New York when, in 1929, addressing a meeting of governors, he condemned unsparingly the "stretching" of the Commerce Clause by Congress to cover its intrusions into the States.
The stockyards at Chicago were being regulated by the State of Illinois. Livestock coming from other States was unloaded at the yards, fed and sheltered. Dealers in livestock had offices in or near the yards and made purchases there. Most of the animals received at the stockyards were taken by the large packing companies and manufactured into beef, pork, and other meats and foods. Those manufactured products were in part shipped out of Illinois to other States.
Someone in Congress or elsewhere conceived the idea that the transportation of freight was continuous, from the feeding lots where the livestock was fattened to the States in which the meats were consumed, and that therefore Illinois should have no control of such "interstate" commerce.
Stockyards Act superfluous as well as illegal
In the statement of facts preceding the opinion by Chief Justice Taft, it was said that "the act seeks to regulate the business of packers done in interstate commerce." But that could have been done without usurping the police power of the State of Illinois over a local industry. For the Sherman Anti-Trust Law had been enacted in 1891, thirty years before, to prevent or remove the conspiracies and combinations in restraint of trade and competition which were in this case charged against the packers.[1] The Chief Justice said that the Packers and Stockyards Act "forbids unfair, discriminatory and deceptive practices in such commerce" -- precisely what the Sherman Law had long forbidden. Except that the Sherman Law was not an invasion of the State in disregard of the Tenth Amendment. The Packers and Stockyards Act was.
1. The Sherman Law was supplemented in 1914 by the Clayton Act. In the same year the Federal Trade Commission Law was enacted to prevent "unfair methods in competition in interstate commerce."
In suits under the Sherman Law combinations like Standard Oil and Northern Securities were broken apart. But each of the leading parties charges the other with failure during its time in office to enforce the anti-trust laws. Senator Borah said in a speech to his colleagues that each party is enthusiastic for regulation of too-big business only in campaign time. It is a question whether the magnitude of many industrial and commercial organizations may affect people toward a belief in Socialism or Communism.
The Act made the Secretary of Agriculture a tribunal to hear complaints of unfair and monopolistic practices and to make desist orders. That was unnecessary, for courts of equity had been giving such remedies under the Sherman Law.
Sherman Law had proved
its complete adequacy
Indeed, as far back as 1905 a decree in a suit under the Sherman Law ordered (196 U.S. 875) the packers to desist from monopolistic practices in their trade in interstate commerce. And following the report of the Federal Trade Commission, and before the passage of the Packers and Stockyards Act, a bill was filed in a Federal Court of the District of Columbia to enjoin the Big Five packers from monopolistic practices in the purchase of livestock and the sale and distribution of meats. To a decree stopping the monopolistic practices complained of, the packers consented.
In 1912 these same packers had been indicted for monopolistic practices in violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Law and upon trial were acquitted.
The Sherman Law also proved adequate to break up Standard Oil, Northern Securities, and many other powerful monopolies.
As has been shown, the courts had many times, under the Sherman Anti-Trust Law, made such combinations give up their controlling shares of stock and desist from the other practices complained of. There was no need for further legislation. The Interstate Commerce Commission had been, under the Commerce Clause, regulating transportation of commerce for more than a third of a century, and the Federal Trade Commission, under the Act of 1914, under the same clause, had for several years been making orders respecting fair practices in trade and commerce.
Long line of holdings
submerged by Stockyards decisions
The decision in the Stockyards case was contrary to a long line of holdings by the Interstate Commerce Commission and the courts that interstate commerce begins upon the delivery of a shipment to a carrier consigned (addressed) to a point in another State, and that it ends upon delivery to the consignee. It was held, for illustration, in another case, that a shipment of property so delivered became taxable by the State where it was received. By many similar decisions the difference between interstate commerce and intrastate commerce had been clearly defined. By the definition so worked out the stockyards company in Chicago, chartered to provide for profit yardage, feed, and care for livestock, was no more engaged in interstate commerce subject to Congressional regulation than was a grocer in a nearby street receiving goods from another State. That the animals were later to go to other States in the form of foods did not make a through interstate shipment of the animals part of the way and the foods at another time the remainder of the distance.
Theory of decision of Supreme Court
The Supreme Court said that the Act treated all stockyards "as great national public utilities." But to call companies operating local yards for feeding and otherwise caring for livestock consigned to them and for facilitating local transactions between sellers and buyers, "great national public utilities," could not change the facts or confer jurisdiction on Congress to regulate their business to the ousting of the constitutional jurisdiction of the States.
However, the Supreme Court held (258 U. S. 495) otherwise, Justice McReynolds dissenting and Justice Day not sitting.
This decision is to be used later to support the extravagance of the National Labor Relations Act as being, not what its title calls it, but a law regulating commerce among the States in accordance with the Commerce Clause of the Constitution!
Fond hope of Madison dashed
Madison fondly believed that the States would rise unanimously against any aggression by the National Government upon their local authority (The Federalist, No. 46):
"But ambitious encroachments of the Federal Government on the authority of the State governments would not excite the opposition of a single State or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole."
Those revolutionary worthies could not conceive of the pusillanimity of a century and a half thereafter! The representatives of the people of the States in Government have originated most of the invasions of the States.
[And Much Worse Two Centuries Thereafter in the 21st Century !!]
No comments:
Post a Comment