Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Charles Evan Hughes (2)
- Court-Packing Plan (2)
- Franklin D. Roosevelt (2)
- Homer Cummings (2)
- Hughes Court (2)
-
- Joseph Robinson (2)
- New Deal (2)
- Supreme Court (2)
- Admiralty (1)
- Burton Wheeler (1)
- Charles Evans Hughes (1)
- Commerce Clause (1)
- Constitutional Law (1)
- Constitutional Structure Accepted Paper Series (1)
- Constitutional revolution (1)
- Cooperative Federalism (1)
- Economic regulation (1)
- Elmo Roper (1)
- Federal regulatory power (1)
- Fiscal policy (1)
- George Gallup (1)
- George Sutherland (1)
- Hatton Sumners (1)
- Henry Fountain Ashurst (1)
- Labor (1)
- Legal History (1)
- Lochner (1)
- Nebbia (1)
- Owen J. Roberts (1)
- Owen Roberts (1)
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Court-Packing Plan As Symptom, Casualty, And Cause Of Gridlock, Barry Cushman
The Court-Packing Plan As Symptom, Casualty, And Cause Of Gridlock, Barry Cushman
Barry Cushman
This essay, prepared for the Notre Dame Law Review's Symposium, “The American Congress: Legal Implications of Gridlock,” considers three ways in which President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1937 Court-packing bill was related to the phenomenon of gridlock in the 1930s. First, as FDR's public remarks on the subject demonstrate, he believed that the early New Deal was a victim of partisan gridlock between the Democrat-controlled political branches and the Republican-controlled judiciary. Moreover, he did not believe that the impasse could be overcome through an amendment to the Constitution, for he regarded Article V's supermajority requirements as virtually encoding gridlock into the …
Lost Fidelities, Barry Cushman
Lost Fidelities, Barry Cushman
Barry Cushman
Owen Roberts was accused of a variety of things in 1937, but “fidelity” was not among them. Justice Harlan Fiske Stone and Professor Felix Frankfurter were among many who accused Roberts of performing, as Frankfurter put it, a jurisprudential “somersault” “incapable of being attributed to a single factor relevant to the professed judicial process.” To Frankfurter, it was “all painful beyond words,” and gave him “a sickening feeling which is aroused when moral standards are adulterated in a convent.” Yet when Roberts announced his retirement from the Court eight years later, Chief Justice Stone, along with now-Justices Frankfurter and Robert …
The Hughes Court Docket Books: The Early Terms, 1929-1933, Barry Cushman
The Hughes Court Docket Books: The Early Terms, 1929-1933, Barry Cushman
Barry Cushman
For many years, the docket books kept by a number of the Hughes Court Justices have been held by the Office of the Curator of the Supreme Court. Yet the existence of these docket books was not widely known, and access to them was highly restricted. In April of 2014, however, the Court adopted new guidelines designed to increase access to the docket books for researchers. This article offers a report and analysis based on a review of all of the docket books that the Curator’s Office holds for the early Hughes Court, comprising the 1929-1933 Terms. Only one of …
The Jurisprudence Of The Hughes Court: The Recent Literature, Barry Cushman
The Jurisprudence Of The Hughes Court: The Recent Literature, Barry Cushman
Barry Cushman
No abstract provided.
Court-Packing And Compromise, Barry Cushman
Court-Packing And Compromise, Barry Cushman
Barry Cushman
President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1937 Court-packing bill would have permitted him to appoint six additional justices to the Supreme Court, thereby expanding its membership to fifteen immediately. Throughout the ultimately unsuccessful campaign to enact the measure, Roosevelt was presented with numerous opportunities to compromise for a measure authorizing the appointment of fewer additional justices. The President rejected each of these proposals, and his refusal to compromise often has been attributed to stubbornness, overconfidence, or hubris. Yet an examination of the papers of Attorney General Homer S. Cummings reveals why FDR and his advisors believed that he required no fewer than …
Lochner, Liquor, And Longshoremen: A Puzzle In Progressive Era Federalism, Barry Cushman
Lochner, Liquor, And Longshoremen: A Puzzle In Progressive Era Federalism, Barry Cushman
Barry Cushman
In 1890, the Supreme Court shocked and thrilled the civilized world with the announcement that dry states could not prohibit the sale of liquor shipped in from outside the state. So long as the out-of-state goods remained in their "original packages," the Court held they retained their character as interstate commerce subject only to federal regulation. The consequences for the cause of local sobriety were, predictably, catastrophic. The proliferation in temperance territory of "original package saloons," at which one could purchase liquor free from the superintendence of local liquor authorities, was appalling to dry eyes. Members of Congress immediately proposed …
Mr. Dooley And Mr. Gallup: Public Opinion And Constitutional Change In The 1930s, Barry Cushman
Mr. Dooley And Mr. Gallup: Public Opinion And Constitutional Change In The 1930s, Barry Cushman
Barry Cushman
Scholars interested in the development of political and constitutional culture during the 1930s sometimes draw inferences about popular preferences on various issues of social and economic policy from the results of presidential and congressional elections. A review of contemporary public opinion polls taken by George Gallup for the American Institute of Public Opinion and by Elmo Roper for the Fortune Magazine survey offers a more granular understanding of popular views on the public policy issues of the day. This article canvasses all of the public opinion polls taken by Gallup and Roper between 1935, when they began publishing their results, …
Nfib V. Sebelius And The Transformation Of The Taxing Power, Barry Cushman
Nfib V. Sebelius And The Transformation Of The Taxing Power, Barry Cushman
Barry Cushman
In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, Chief Justice Roberts wrote for a majority of five Justices in holding that the “shared responsibility payment” required by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) constituted an imposition of a “tax” rather than a “penalty.” Thus, even though the Chief Justice and four other Justices had concluded that the provision was not a legitimate exercise of the commerce power, the Court held that it was a valid exercise of the taxing power. The origin of the distinction between taxes and penalties in taxing power jurisprudence is found in the 1922 …