Where In The Constitution...

[QuadsOverQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
Nope, you nailed it. If I were a libertarian, the "Court Packing Scheme" would be the single worst political event ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you have to look at that event in context, however.

The court FDR locked horns with was HIGHLY activist, and had read into the 14th Amendment an absolute right for all employment relationships to be completely unregulated at both the state and the federal level (under the phrase of "liberty of contract", which they judicially inserted into the 14th Amendment via the "life, liberty and property" clause).

This was both legally invalid and extraodinarily irresponsible (given the context of the Great Depression and FDR's critical and necessary efforts to improve working conditions and wages in the United States).

The "court packing crisis" was a last ditch effort to rein in an extremist, activist court that was overstepping its constitutional authority in order to graft right-wing labor theories onto the United States Constitution.

FDR did the right thing, and the extremists finally backed down (although their progeny continue to shake their fists at FDR to this day).


q/q

[ojc02]

I love how whenever anyone disagrees with a supreme court decision, they call them "activist".

"Liberty of contract" follows directly from "liberty". They didn't say "liberty (except in contracts)", they said "liberty".

What is a contract? It is an agreement between two people to which they BOTH AGREE!!! To deny it IS to infringe on both of their liberty.

How many times do we have to go over this? Liberty of contract is NOT what caused the great depression. It was federal mismanagement of the money supply. Even Fed chiefs admit this! How can it possibly be argued?

[ConstantineX]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you have to go back to Gibbons vs Ogden and move forward from there too.

[/ QUOTE ]

You might also want to go back to McCulloch v. Maryland (which was actually a cited precendential case for Gibbons). I won't get into the details, but one of the major holdings was that Congress can do anything not restricted by the Constitution, rather than limiting Congress's powers to those enumerated. And this was before the opinion's discussion of the Necessary and Proper Clause.

The expansive view of the Commerce Clause was made possible in large part to this interpretation of Congress's powers.

[/ QUOTE ]

How the hell could the Court have decided this? Doesn't the meaning they inferred clash directly with the word "enumerated", which as I understand it being used means "completely specified"?

[Emperor]

Great point OP. Congress isn't allowed to delegate its authority either, yet they have delegated to numerous agencies that were never supposed to be federal agencies based upon original intent.

We have added more federal laws in 30 years than the previous 200. 99% of which should have been regulated by the states.

[John Kilduff]

I'd just like to add something.

If the rationale (Constitutional justification, that is) behind the Controlled Substances Act is the Commerce Clause and its regulatory powers, then the penalties later attached to the Controlled Substances Act are penalties attendant to attemps to regulate.

Does anyone not think it bizarre, as well as draconian, that any regulatory efforts should be attended by the following penalties for violation? (penalties bolded below)

"(b) Penalties
Except as otherwise provided in section 849, 859, 860, or 861 of this title, any person who violates subsection (a) of this section shall be sentenced as follows:

(1)
(A) In the case of a violation of subsection (a) of this section involving -
(i) 1 kilogram or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of heroin;
(ii) 5 kilograms or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of -
(I) coca leaves, except coca leaves and extracts of coca leaves from which cocaine, ecgonine, and derivatives of ecgonine or their salts have been removed;
(II) cocaine, its salts, optical and geometric isomers, and salts of isomers;
(III) ecgonine, its derivatives, their salts, isomers, and salts of isomers; or
(IV) any compound, mixture, or preparation which contains any quantity of any of the substances referred to in subclauses (I) through (III);
(iii) 50 grams or more of a mixture or substance described in clause (ii) which contains cocaine base;
(iv) 100 grams or more of phencyclidine (PCP) or 1 kilogram or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of phencyclidine (PCP);
(v) 10 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD);
(vi) 400 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of N-phenyl-N- ( 1- ( 2-phenylethyl ) -4-piperidinyl ) propanamide or 100 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of any analogue of N-pheny propanamide;
(vii) 1000 kilograms or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of marihuana, or 1,000 or more marihuana plants regardless of weight; or
(viii) 100 grams or more of methamphetamine, its salts, isomers, and salts of its isomers or 1 kilogram or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, its salts, isomers, or salts of its isomers;


such person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment which may not be less than 10 years or more than life and if death or serious bodily injury results from the use of such substance shall be not less than 20 years or more than life, a fine not to exceed the greater of that authorized in accordance with the provisions of title 18 or $4,000,000 if the defendant is an individual or $10,000,000 if the defendant is other than an individual, or both. If any person commits such a violation after a prior conviction for a felony drug offense has become final, such person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment which may not be less than 20 years and not more than life imprisonment and if death or serious bodily injury results from the use of such substance shall be sentenced to life imprisonment, a fine not to exceed the greater of twice that authorized in accordance with the provisions of title 18 or $8,000,000 if the defendant is an individual or $20,000,000 if the defendant is other than an individual, or both. If any person commits a violation of this subparagraph or of section 849, 859, 860, or 861 of this title after two or more prior convictions for a felony drug offense have become final, such person shall be sentenced to a mandatory term of life imprisonment without release and fined in accordance with the preceding sentence. Any sentence under this subparagraph shall, in the absence of such a prior conviction, impose a term of supervised release of at least 5 years in addition to such term of imprisonment and shall, if there was such a prior conviction, impose a term of supervised release of at least 10 years in addition to such term of imprisonment. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court shall not place on probation or suspend the sentence of any person sentenced under this subparagraph. No person sentenced under this subparagraph shall be eligible for parole during the term of imprisonment imposed therein. "

http://www.fda.gov/opacom/laws/cntrlsub/cntlsbd.htm

So apparently this is what an expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause has led to?

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
How many times do we have to go over this? Liberty of contract is NOT what caused the great depression. It was federal mismanagement of the money supply. Even Fed chiefs admit this! How can it possibly be argued?

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by "federal" mismanagement?

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How many times do we have to go over this? Liberty of contract is NOT what caused the great depression. It was federal mismanagement of the money supply. Even Fed chiefs admit this! How can it possibly be argued?

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by "federal" mismanagement?

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant to say "the fed's". Ma bad.

[NeBlis]

[ QUOTE ]
I also think part of it was when the supreme court was reprimanded by FDR for trying to block his new deal legislation. When he threatened to pack the court with his own judges then folded and passed new deal legislation. Even though they initially thought it to be outside the bounds of the national government. Things have not been the same since. I could be wrong on the historical ramifications of this event. But I am pretty sure this is accurate though.

[/ QUOTE ]


One of a LONG LONG list of devastating political ploys initiated by FDR. If there were one historical figure I could travel back in time and strangle at birth it would that scumbag.
Obv many of the idiotic policies he championed could have come about anyway but I can dream right?

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you have to go back to Gibbons vs Ogden and move forward from there too.

[/ QUOTE ]

You might also want to go back to McCulloch v. Maryland (which was actually a cited precendential case for Gibbons). I won't get into the details, but one of the major holdings was that Congress can do anything not restricted by the Constitution, rather than limiting Congress's powers to those enumerated. And this was before the opinion's discussion of the Necessary and Proper Clause.

The expansive view of the Commerce Clause was made possible in large part to this interpretation of Congress's powers.

[/ QUOTE ]

How the hell could the Court have decided this? Doesn't the meaning they inferred clash directly with the word "enumerated", which as I understand it being used means "completely specified"?

[/ QUOTE ]

That sounds baffling to me as well.

On a related note, I recall reading somewhere the following contention:

that nowhere in the Constitution is the judicial branch given the power to rule on the interpretation of the Constitution. Accordingly, debate about Constitutional interpretation should take place in the open instead of behind closed judge's chamber doors, and the People rather than judges would get to decide on the interpretation. So maybe Congress would debate it and then vote on it (and the People would take Congressman's positions into account when voting for them).

The contention also said that the U.S. Supreme Court had been deciding matters of Constitutional interpretation for so long a period that nobody now questions it - but that that authority is just not present in the Constitution. It went on (if I recall) to say that the Founders did not intend for government to provide the check on government - that the People were supposed to provide the check on government and to keep government in line with the Constitutional parameters.

Anyone else ever hear of this or have any information on this?

[AngusThermopyle]

Marbury v Madison