FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68  
69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   >>   >|  
upon income from bonds of a state municipal corporation was repugnant to the Constitution as a tax upon the borrowing power of the state. [Footnote 1: _Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co._, 157 U.S., 429 (1895).] In _Keller v. United States_[1] the Court declared unconstitutional, as an encroachment on the police power of the states, an act of Congress making it a felony to harbor alien prostitutes, the Court declaring that "speaking generally, the police power is reserved to the states and there is no grant thereof to Congress in the Constitution." [Footnote 1: 213 U.S., 138 (1909).] In the Child Labor case[1] the Court held the federal Child Labor Law of 1916 unconstitutional as invading the police power reserved to the states. The Court said: This Court has no more important function than that which devolves upon it the obligation to preserve inviolate the constitutional limitations upon the exercise of authority, federal and state, to the end that each may continue to discharge, harmoniously with the other, the duties entrusted to it by the Constitution.[2] [Footnote 1: _Hammer v. Dagenhart_, 247 U.S., 251 (1918).] [Footnote 2: An even stronger assertion of state rights is found in the Child Labor Tax Case (_Bailey v. The Drexel Furniture Co._) decided May 15, 1922, after this chapter had been put into print.] How is it then, someone may ask, if the Supreme Court is so zealous in defense of the rights of the states, that those rights are being encroached upon more and more by the National Government? The answer must be that there has been a change in the popular frame of mind. The desire for uniformity, standardization, efficiency, has outgrown the earlier fears of a centralization of power. Congress has found ways, under the constitutional grants of power to lay taxes and regulate interstate commerce, to legislate in furtherance of the popular demands. The Court is not strong enough (no governmental agency which could be devised would be strong enough) to hold back the flood or permanently thwart the popular will. In a government of the people everything has to yield sooner or later to the deliberate wish of the majority. Some profess to view the recent encroachments of federal power as a triumph of the principles advocated by Alexander Hamilton and John Marshall over the principles of Thomas Jefferson. Such a claim does Hamilton and Marshall an injustice. While the
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68  
69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
Footnote
 

states

 

Congress

 

rights

 

federal

 

popular

 
police
 

Constitution

 

Marshall

 

reserved


constitutional

 

strong

 

Hamilton

 

unconstitutional

 
principles
 

National

 

centralization

 

earlier

 

grants

 

outgrown


Government
 

zealous

 

desire

 
defense
 
encroached
 

standardization

 

efficiency

 

change

 

uniformity

 

Supreme


regulate

 

answer

 

recent

 

encroachments

 

triumph

 

profess

 

deliberate

 
majority
 

advocated

 

Alexander


injustice

 

Jefferson

 
Thomas
 
sooner
 

governmental

 

agency

 
devised
 

demands

 
commerce
 

legislate