the right of collective bargaining, etc.,
and the resulting strikes, curtailment and irregularity of
production and effect on prices; and it is insisted that
interstate commerce is greatly affected thereby.... The
conclusive answer is that the evils are all local evils over
which the Federal Government has no legislative control. The
relation of employer and employee is a local relation. At
common law, it is one of the domestic relations. The wages are
paid for the doing of local work. Working conditions are
obviously local conditions. The employees are not engaged in
or about commerce, but exclusively in producing a commodity.
And the controversies and evils, which it is the object of the
act to regulate and minimize, are local controversies and
evils affecting local work undertaken to accomplish that local
result. Such effect as they may have upon commerce, however
extensive it may be, is secondary and indirect. An increase in
the greatness of the effect adds to its importance. It does
not alter its character.[14]

We all know how this issue was finally resolved. In the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 Congress not only prohibits interstate commerce in
goods produced by substandard labor, but it directly forbids, with
penalties, the employment of labor in industrial production for
interstate commerce on other than certain prescribed terms. And in
United States _v._ Darby[15] this Act was sustained by the Court, in all
its sweeping provisions, on the basis of an opinion by Chief Justice
Stone which in turn is based on Chief Justice Marshall's famous opinions
in McCulloch _v._ Maryland and Gibbons _v._ Ogden rendered more than a
century and a quarter ago. In short, as a principle capable of
delimiting the national legislative power, the concept of Dual
Federalism as regards the present Court seems today to be at an end,
with consequent aggrandizement of national power.

There is, however, another side to the story. For in one respect even
the great Marshall has been in effect overruled in support of enlarged
views of national authority. Without essaying a vain task of "tithing
mint, anise and cummin," it is fairly accurate to say that throughout
the 100 years which lie between Marshall's death and the cases of the
1930's, the conception of the federal relationship which on the whole
prevailed with the Court was a competitive conceptio