Synthaholic
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2010
- 76,095
- 73,598
- 3,605
- Thread starter
- #521
In the first, you talk about "restricting provisions" and in the second one, you talk about "regulating relations".1. I haven't seen the film....but would like to remind that there were Democrats, who were still loyal to the Constitution...you know...prior to the current iteration of the Democrat Party, who vehemently objected to Roosevelt's power grab.
But, sadly, Roosevelt's threat worked, the Supreme Court bowed and succumbed to Roosevelt's whip.
2. To see the abject cowardice of the Justices, note that in invalidating the Guffey-Vinson Coal Act on May 18, 1936, less than a year before Roosevelt attempted to pack the court, Justice Charles Evans Hughes said that federal laws restricting local labor relations provisions were unconstitutional, that "the relations of employer and employee is a local relation" and "the evils are all local evils over which the federal government has no legislative control."
He went on to say "Otherwise in view of the multitude of indirect effects Congress in its discretion could assume control of virtually all of the activities of the people to the subversion of the fundamental principles of the Constitution." And..."...it is not for the court to amend the Constitution by judicial decision."
Atta boy, Hughes!!!
The US Constitution is inviolable!!!
Sort of......
3. Proof of Roosevelt's total control of another branch of government came just eleven months later: the very same Chief Justice Hughes, spoke for the majority in finding the Wagner Labor Relations Act constitutional.
Yes, he said...Congress could regulate labor relations in manufacturing plants.
Roosevelt destroyed the independence of the Supreme Court.
And so we became an America without checks and balances.
That is the legacy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
There is no description of the actual details, so I have no idea if they conflict.
Just more vague cut-n-pasting.
