United States v Butler (1936)

United States v. Butler (1936)
297 U.S. 1, 56 S.Ct. 312, 80 L.Ed. 477

Majority: Roberts, Butler, Hughes, McReynolds, Sutherland, Van Devanter.

Dissenting- Stone (opinion), Brandeis, Cardozo.

BACKGROUND- As part of the 1933 Agricultural Adjustment Act, Congress implemented a processing tax on agricultural commodities, from which funds would be redistributed to farmers who promised to reduce their acreage. The Act intended to solve the crisis in agricultural commodity prices which was causing many farmers to go under.

Major constitutional question: Did Congress have the right to regulate and control agricultural production as legislated in the AAA?

DECISION- No.

Author: Justice Roberts

Opinion of the Court: While the Hamiltonian position interpreting the taxing andspending clause is an expansive one and indeed the correct one, Congress nevertheless is limited in its act. The regulation of agricultural production is a a local matter, not subject to the will of Congress-- this very fact is guaranteed by the 10th amendment. Powers not expressly delegated to the federal government are generally prohibited and reserved to the states.

Dissenting Opinion (Justice Stone, joined by Brandeis and Cardozo):  In this case the court should have deferred to the legislature. The taxing and spending power includes the attempt of the Agricultural Adjustment Act to relieve the nation from the effects of the Great Depression.

  

The Oyez Project, United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1901-1939/1936/1936_98/>
(last visited Wednesday, March 18, 2009).

United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936)

United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936)
299 U.S. 304, 57 S.Ct. 216, 81 L.Ed. 255

Majority: Sutherland, Brandeis, Butler, Cardozo, Hughes, Roberts, Van Devanter. 7-1.

Dissenting (without opinion): McReynolds. Not participating- Stone.

Background: In an effort to calm down a war between Bolivia and Paraguay, Congress passed a joint resolution authorizing the president to issue an arms embargo by proclamation. The Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. was found shipping machine guns to Bolivia, in violation of the embargo. Their defense held that the congress delegated an unconstitutional legislative power to the president.

Major Constitional Question: Did Congress in its Joint Resolution unconstitutionally delegate legislative power to the President?

Decision: No.

Author: Sutherland

Opinion of the Court: The management of foreign affairs is the exclusive province of the chief executive of the United States. It is wholly within the President's power to proclaim such an embargo, as it has to deal with external affairs. The President's power in such foreign affairs is plenary; it is not so within the realm of congress. Congress does not negotiate with other states, it's the President's job to do that. Justice Sutherland argued because "the President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation," Congress may provide the President with a special degree of discretion in external matters which would not be afforded domestically.

Stafford v. Wallace (1922)

Stafford v. Wallace (1922)
258 U.S. 495, 42 S.Ct. 397, 66 L.Ed. 735

Majority: CJ Taft, Brandeis, Clarke, Holmes, McKenna, Pitney, De Vanter.
Dissenting (without opinion): McReynolds. Not participating: Day.

BACKGROUND: In 1921 Congress enacted the Packers and Stockyards Act to regulate activities of meat packers that were unfair, discriminatory, deceptive, or that encouraged the formation of monopolies. Stafford, the petitioner of a livestock firm, sued the Secretary of Agriculture Wallace for the reason:

"That the operation of stockyards did not constitute interstate commerce, and therefore Congress did not have authority under the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution to enforce the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921."

Major Constitutional Question: Does the United States Congress have the authority to regulate the operation of stockyards as permitted by the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921?

Decision of the Court: Yes it does.

Author of the opinion: Chief Justice Taft

Opinion of the Court: The regulation of the stockyards is within the constitutional authority of the Congress. The stockyards were not "places of rest or a final destination," hence they fell under the interstate commerce clause's jurisdiction. These stockyards are considered "a throat through which the current of commerce flows." Hence, "the orders of the District Court refusing the interlocutory injunctions are affirmed."

Good source-- http://law.jrank.org/pages/13658/Stafford-v-Wallace.html

Hammer v Dagenhart

Notes for Week 8

Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918)
247 U.S. 251, 38 S.Ct. 529, 62 L.Ed. 1101

Majority: Day, McReynolds, Pitney, Van Devanter, CJ (Chief Justice) White.
Dissenting- Holmes, Brandeis, Clarke, McKenna.

Background: The Keating-Owen Child Labor Act of 1916 forbade the shipment in interstate commerce of products of child labor. Dagenhart sued on behalf oh his freedom to allow his 14 year old son to work in a textile mill.

Major Constitutional Question: Does the congressional act regulating child labor violate the Commerce Clause and Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution?

DECISON: Yes.

Author: Justice Day.

Opinion of the Court: Production is not subject to regulation, because it is not a part of commerce. The regulation of production is a power "not expressly delegated to the U.S." (Day) but reserved to the states under the 10th Amendment