Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,790
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 5:
Line 5: + + + +
A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (view source)
Revision as of 03:19, October 1, 2020
, 03:19, October 1, 2020court packing scheme prompted by this decision
The justification for this formal distinction was rooted in the fear that otherwise "there would be virtually no limit to the federal power and for all practical purposes we should have a completely centralized government." ''Id.'' at 548.
The justification for this formal distinction was rooted in the fear that otherwise "there would be virtually no limit to the federal power and for all practical purposes we should have a completely centralized government." ''Id.'' at 548.
== Court Packing Scheme ==
This was the decision that prompted President [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]]'s ill-fated [[court packing]] scheme:
{{cquote|Roosevelt was particularly upset by the Court’s 1935 decision in Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States. The unanimous decision invalidated a key part of the National Industrial Recovery Act, one of the projects passed during FDR's 100-day program in 1933. President Roosevelt did not mince words a week later when he talked to the press. “You see the implications of the decision. That is why I say it is one of the most important decisions ever rendered in this country,” Roosevelt told reporters on May 31, 1935. “We have been relegated to the horse-and-buggy definition of interstate commerce.”<ref>https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/packing-the-supreme-court-explained</ref>}}
== Sources ==
== Sources ==