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).
No comments:
Post a Comment