FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   1031   1032   1033   1034   1035   1036   1037   1038   1039   1040   1041   1042   1043   1044   1045   1046   1047   1048   1049   1050   1051   1052   1053   1054   1055  
1056   1057   1058   1059   1060   1061   1062   1063   1064   1065   1066   1067   1068   1069   1070   1071   1072   1073   1074   1075   1076   1077   1078   1079   1080   >>   >|  
t that the existence of an economic emergency justified the exercise of what Chief Justice Hughes called "extraconstitutional authority."[23] In 1941 the Court came full circle in its exposition of this amendment. Having returned to the position of John Marshall four years earlier when it sustained the Social Security[24] and National Labor Relations Acts,[25] it explicitly restated Marshall's thesis in upholding the Fair Labor Standards Act in United States _v._ Darby.[26] Speaking for a unanimous Court, Chief Justice Stone wrote: "The power of Congress over interstate commerce 'is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the Constitution.' * * * That power can neither be enlarged nor diminished by the exercise or non-exercise of state power. * * * It is no objection to the assertion of the power to regulate interstate commerce that its exercise is attended by the same incidents which attend the exercise of the police power of the states. * * * Our conclusion is unaffected by the Tenth Amendment which * * * states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered."[27] Police Power But even prior to 1937 not all measures taken to promote objectives which had traditionally been regarded as the responsibilities of the States had been held invalid. In Hamilton _v._ Kentucky Distilleries Co.,[28] a unanimous Court, speaking by Justice Brandeis, upheld "War Prohibition", saying: "That the United States lacks the police power, and that this was reserved to the States by the Tenth Amendment, is true. But it is none the less true that when the United States exerts any of the powers conferred upon it by the Constitution, no valid objection can be based upon the fact that such exercise may be attended by the same incidents which attend the exercise by a State of its police power."[29] And in a series of cases, which today seem irreconcilable with Hammer _v._ Dagenhart, it sustained federal laws penalizing the interstate transportation of lottery tickets,[30] of women for immoral purposes,[31] of stolen automobiles,[32] and of tick-infested cattle.[33] It affirmed the power of Congress to punish the forgery of bills of lading purporting to cover interstate shipments of merchandise,[34] to subject prison made goods moved from one State to another to the laws of the receiving State,[35] and to regulate prescriptions for the medicin
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   1031   1032   1033   1034   1035   1036   1037   1038   1039   1040   1041   1042   1043   1044   1045   1046   1047   1048   1049   1050   1051   1052   1053   1054   1055  
1056   1057   1058   1059   1060   1061   1062   1063   1064   1065   1066   1067   1068   1069   1070   1071   1072   1073   1074   1075   1076   1077   1078   1079   1080   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

exercise

 

States

 
interstate
 

United

 

Justice

 

police

 

unanimous

 
commerce
 

states

 

attend


Amendment

 

incidents

 

objection

 

attended

 
regulate
 

Constitution

 

Congress

 

Marshall

 

sustained

 

regarded


prison

 

exerts

 
traditionally
 
subject
 
reserved
 

Prohibition

 
prescriptions
 

invalid

 
Hamilton
 
Kentucky

Distilleries
 

speaking

 
powers
 
responsibilities
 

receiving

 

Brandeis

 
upheld
 
medicin
 

shipments

 
infested

federal

 

penalizing

 

cattle

 

Hammer

 

Dagenhart

 

automobiles

 
immoral
 

purposes

 
transportation
 

lottery