No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
As was pointed out a year ago in this Review, the Supreme Court was able to deal with the cases involving the New Deal which came before it during its 1934 term without any striking enlargement of judicial power and without the announcement of any novel constitutional doctrine. The N.R.A., the Gold Clauses, the Farm Bankruptcy Act, were dealt with by the familiar processes of deciding whether Congress had actually exercised a power not granted to it by the Constitution, or had exercised a granted power in a forbidden way. The New Deal issues which came to the Court during the 1935 term were quite as far-reaching in significance and were certainly not of a routine variety. They involved, in some cases, constitutional clauses never before interpreted by the Court. Some of the federal laws under attack were obviously exercises of delegated powers, but at the same time, they exercised delegated powers for purposes which were novel and which had been commonly supposed not to be within the reach of federal authority. In dealing with laws of this type, the Court brought forward and established as a working implement of constitutional construction the so-called doctrine of “dual federalism.”
1 See Vol. 30, p. 51.
2 See his discussion in the first chapter of The Twilight of the Supreme Court.
3 247 U.S. 251, 1918.
4 See his dissenting opinion in United States v. Constantine, 296 U.S. 287, 1935.
5 297 U.S. 1, 1936.
6 Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U.S. 20, 1922.
7 297 U.S. 110, 1936.
8 298 U.S. 513, 1936.
9 296 U.S. 315, 1935.
10 298 U.S. 238, 1936.
11 206 U.S. 46, 1907.
12 297 U.S. 431, 1936.
13 140 U.S. 545, 1891.
14 297 U.S. 175, 1936.
15 The so-called Lindbergh Act of 1932, as amended in 1934, was interpreted and enforced in the case of Gooch v. United States, 297 U.S. 124, 1936. The Court did not pass squarely upon the validity of this federal kidnapping act, inasmuch as no attack seems to have been made upon its constitutionality. The Court held, however, that an officer who is unlawfully seized and carried away to prevent the arrest of his captors is “held for reward or otherwise” within the meaning of the act. The conviction of Gooch for this offense was accordingly sustained.
16 296 U.S., 287, 1935.
17 297 U.S. 288, 1936.
18 285 U.S. 22, 1932.
19 298 U.S. 38, 1936.
20 298 U.S. 468, 1936.
21 298 U.S. 1, 1936.
22 261 U.S. 525, 1923.
23 298 U.S. 587, 1936.
24 297 U.S. 233, 1936.
25 283 U.S. 697, 1931. For comment, see this Review, Vol. 26, p. 270Google Scholar.
26 297 U.S. 278, 1936.
27 211 U.S. 78, 1908.
28 297 U.S. 135, 1936.
29 297 U.S. 251, 1936.
30 291 U.S. 502, 1934. For comment, see this Review, Vol. 29, p. 45Google Scholar.
31 297 U.S. 266, 1936.
32 297 U.S. 422, 1936.
33 296 U.S. 176, 1935.
34 298 U.S. 155, 1936.
35 297 U.S. 441, 1936.
36 297 U.S. 682, 1936.
37 297 U.S. 403, 1936.
38 297 U.S. 650, 1936.
39 296 U.S. 261, 1935.
40 298 U.S. 407, 1936.
41 297 U.S. 626, 1936.
42 298 U.S. 393, 1936.
43 297 U.S. 189, 1936.
44 298 U.S. 36, 1936.
45 297 U.S. 119, 1936.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.