xt7wwp9t2q46_39 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7wwp9t2q46/data/mets.xml https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7wwp9t2q46/data/59m61.dao.xml American Liberty League 37 linear feet archival material English University of Kentucky This digital resource may be freely searched and displayed. Permission must be received for subsequent distribution in print or electronically. Physical rights are retained by the owning repository. Copyright is retained in accordance with U. S. copyright laws. For information about permissions to reproduce or publish, contact the Special Collections Research Center. Jouett Shouse Collection (American Liberty League Pamphlets), No. 42 "The Supreme Court And The New Deal," June 17, 1935 text No. 42 "The Supreme Court And The New Deal," June 17, 1935 2013 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7wwp9t2q46/data/59m61/59m61_42/Am_Lib_Lg_42_001/Am_Lib_Lg_42_001.pdf section false xt7wwp9t2q46_39 xt7wwp9t2q46 Q 4 A. V NI" _} _ v_ ` 4 [_ , V _ V W _ . V it ·* ·* w ¤" ‘·" * ".5` · ·' """
Pamphlets Available at- *
. *. A THE
Copies of the following pamphlets and
other League literature may be obtained `
upon application to the League’s national
headquarters:
Why, the American Liberty League?
The Tenth (gommandfnent d P
Statement o Princip es an urposes i °
Progress vs. Change—Speech by Jottett Shouse D
Recovery, Relief and the Constituti0n—Speech
by Jouett Shouse _
American Liberty League—Its Platform
An Analysis of the President’s Budget Message
Analysis of the $§,880,000,000 Emergency Relief
Appropriation ct
Economic Security * * *
The Bonus
Inflation r
Democracy or Bureaucracy?—Speech by Joaett
e irty our ee , . . . .
Thghoiqlgiei H W k
The Constitution Still Stands——Speech by Joaett _‘ Ifn m the °p1}11°n.°f the people, ,th°, d1S`
ghousie tribution or modification of the constitutional
The Pending Banking Bill powers be in any particular wrong, let it be
The Holding Company Bill corrected by an amendment in the way in
TES? Legislative Situetie¤——Sz>eech by Jeuett which the Constitution designates. But let
N OVW _ _ _ , there be no change by usurpation; for though
Vggggcf 21;/6 J$I$£;§1J%$1°§e?k€tW€€n FmBndS?,_‘ this, in one instance, may be the instrument of
Where Are We Going?—Speech by James W. ?OOd’ It 1S the customary Weagfm by Whmh
Wadsworth ree governments are degtroyed.W h. t
Price Control —— eorge as trtg ori.
Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow
The Labor Relations Bill
Goveiimtéent hby Experiment—Speech by Dr.
N ei arot ers
How Inflation Affects the Average Family-
Speech by Dr. Ray Bert Westerfield p
The AAA Amendments ERM.
, Politiiral Banking——Speech by Dr. Walter E. V3" *,1,
Sm T I
The Bituminous Coal Bill . .- ,4
Regimenting the Farmers—Speech by Dr. G. W. ‘ `Qa a
Dyer Q? P9
Extension of the NRA ’v if
Human Rights and the Constitution-—-Speech
by R. E. Desverrtine
The Farmers’ Home Bill
The TVA Amendments
The New Deal, Its Unsound Theories and Ir-
reconcilable Policies—Speech by Ralph M.
Shaw
Is the _oonst1tntion for snior-speech by onpt. AMERICAN LIBERTY LEAGUE
Wtuwm H- Siltltyigtt _, National Headquarters
H§i‘;"f°EMg‘;f_a§, 6 SS“€‘S¥’“°" by HO"- WW NATIONAL Pnnss BUH.DING
* WASHINGTON, D. C.
AMERICAN LIBERTY LEAGUE * *
NATIONAL PRESS BUILDING
WASI-HNGTON, D. C.
Document N0. 42
_ June, was
The Supreme Court and There are now reports that some of tliose who
are dissatisfied with the Supreme Courts forth-
tbz New Deal 1(iight defense oil the Ctonstiizutionh maybseeiig to
* eS§$i$e“iiZ“%§“iieitZey m2niie?iL“e iii thi? SES?
Beginning with the Amazon Petroleum deci- riecticii the American Liberty League calls at-
sion on January 17, 1935, the Supreme Court tention to the excerpt from George W&Sh1HgtOH’S
of the United States on five occasions within a I rereweii ·‘¤·ddl‘€SS P1'l¤l>€€l 01l the <>0V€1` Page cf
period of five months has decided formally that i this P9·mPhi€l¤·
measures adopted by those presently in charge I
of the Executive and Legislative branches of the s
Federal Government, actingeither in combina- The Schechter Case
tion or individually, were 1n violation of the D _d d M 27 1935
Constitution. _ ect e ay ,
enitingwin°inZhiE$ei?eiEiiZiihZ.iS€iI£§°iI$i§i`ie°ii`Si iii- j Uni; sae; areg. gattciitggscg¤rigiic¤Ei¤tthe
dustrial Recovery Act, and the oil decision—the DIIIte. t fe‘§e ne Tis f ,31 cr 1 (ie f ag eIiII
Court held that Congress had attempted an un- IS II°. ies ew ir e e eievem te in an S
constitutional delegation of legislative powers to _? “P‘i”t$`”g eeIItie°u£ILe; O ge Ieénein,, e erguig
the President. · ` VIS; iiI°IISde the N ire {ml ley te f Rpmmu '
In two instances——the Schechter case and the V ia te Im er e e Iene II ue me eeevery
decision invalidating the Railroad Retirement g ei' th i fch. f J ,0. H h h
Act——the Court declared that the Congress and r d in ei iigguege e Ie .IIe Iee f cer IE
the President together had attempted to go be- i tie IVSI? d et I‘IIIe’IIII§°}DI§ °pIIII°§0I (L. e Iiui
yond the limitations of Federal power to regu- ? i e _e ee aa S IIe‘Iee Iee een ee IOIIS as e "
late interstate commerce sand had thus invaded Owe' (1) h h C d h d b d d
y` i _ " t at t e o e a een a o te ursuant
thiiiggGline(;WogIiInSs€;n2Io;_g?iI2ISRaih·oad Rotii.o_ to Ian unconstitutional delegation by? Contgress of
ment decision and that invalidating the Frazier- leaiggtiie tpelgeritt t d t 1 .
Lcmke Farm Mertaaac Mcratcricm Act-the trenseotioiis tniiieiip eeua?ee”°&`L“t§ui£’$l’-?SI“E‘2
Court held that Congress and the President act- Congress. and y y
iris tcsethcr had viclatecl that prcvieicri cf the ~ tlfat in certain provisions it wee repugnant
Fifth Amendment to the Constitution Which pI'O- to the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment."
hibits theftiaking of private property without due The Court upheld the first two contentions
rocess o aw. . .
p In one instance—the so-called Humphrey case I eine Pfiissed °VeI“.I’IIe IIIIIIII WII°II e eee‘I°emeIIt.t°
resulting in a decision that the President had I e e ect thee III VIeW cf the deeIeI°n Wlth
exceeded his authority in attempting the sum- Ieepeet Fc the IIIISII IWC I°heIe was ne need fer
mary removal of a member of the Federal Trade e°Ii§’IeIeI`IIIg the I°hIId‘ , .
Commission—the Court held that the President eI`I°IIIeIIe eXeeI`ptS_ IIOIII the Court S ImenI'
had attempted to infringe upon the prerogatives meue eIeeIeIeII I°II°W‘
of the Legislative branch of the Government. "We are tcld that the prcvieicn cf the Statute
Thus there has been official confirmation from euthofizlng the ad0Pti0¤ cf ccdee ¤}t{S’¤ be Victfcd
the highest Source of the criticisms Which have in the light of the grave national crisis with which
been made from time to time of various policies gengrsee IiI;eehe°IIIIeIIted‘ d§III‘I°I:ibte‘IIYi the °°II‘%:'
I of the present administration——criticisms biased cgiedelielg xh€I?i;1v§r€;{ir@iS€r?)§fSB 0;; it v;i?;’E€I;1° Bde
Pyinoipolly upon tno oontontion that tnoso Pon' Extraordinary conditions may csll for extraordirgary
cies involved attempted aggrandizement of the remedies. But the argument necessarily stops short
EXecut1Ve branch of the Government (the P1‘eS1- of an attempt to justify action which lies outside
dent) in Violation of those basic principles upon the sphere of constitutional authority. Extraordinary
which rest our System Of dug] Sovereignty Of conditions do not. create or enlarge constitutional
State and Nation and our division of powers power. The Constitution established a national gov-
between the three coordinate branches of the ernment with pewere eeemeel Ie be adequate ee
Federal Govsrmnsnto they have proved to be both in war and peaee, ibut
these powers of the national government are limited
2 3
by the 0-Onstitutional grants- Those who act under i expansion described in section one. In View of the
these grants are not at liberty to transcend the im- Scope Of that broad declaration, and of the nature
peeed limits because they believe that more or , of the few restrictions that are imposed, the discre-
difiefeilt POWBT is necessary- Such 8jS$Brt1°HS of tion of the President in approving or prescribing
extra—constitutiona1 authority were anticipated and codes, and thus enacting laws for the government
preeiuded bY the explicit terms Of the Tenth i of trade and industry throughout the country, is
‘ Ame¤dH1e¤l>—‘Th€ POWBYS not _ delegated tc? ,'“h€ i virtually unfettered. We think that the code-making
United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited i authority thus conferred is an unconstitutional
by it to the States, are reserved to the States delegation Of legislative power},
respectively, or to the pe0ple.’” _ »•· »•¤ »•· =•= =•¤ =•=
* * * * * * "If the commerce clause were construed to reach
“We recently had Occasion te l`€Vi€W the Pertinent i all enterprises and transactions which could be said
decisions and the geflefai P¥‘i¤€iPl€S Which govem to have an indirect effect upon interstate commerce,
the d€t€I‘miH9~l?iOH of this Qu€Sti0¤· Panama Re" — the federal authority would embrace practically all
lining C0mP6m?/ ’U· Ryan, 293 U- S- 388- The C0? the activities of the people and the authority of the
stitution p1‘0VideS that ‘A111esiSiatiVe POWBYS h€¥`€m 3 State over its domestic concerns would exist only
granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United g by Suffgrgmgg gf the federal gOvBmme¤1;,"
i States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of l =•= ·•= >»= ·•= =•= =•=
Representatives} Art. I,_sec.. 1. And the Congress . MH the federal government may determine the
is authorized ‘To make all laws which shall he Wages and hours Of employees in the internal cOm_
necessary and pr0pe1‘ f01‘ 0a1'1‘Yi¤g into execution, its i merce of a State, because of their relation to cost
general powers- Art- I, S€‘°· 8» Pal`- 18· The COD' l and prices and their indirect effect upon interstate
gress is not permitted to abdieate OY t0 transfer commerce, it would seem that a similar control
to others the essential legislative functions with i might be exerted Over other dements Of cost, also
which it is thus vested. We h9·Ve 1’€P€9»l?€d1Y I'€cOg' i affecting prices, such as the number of employees,
nized the necessity of adaPi?i¤E 1esiS1¤ti¤¤t¤ complex rents, advertising, methods of doing business, etc.
conditions iI1V0iVi¤g a best Of details with which All the processes of production and distribution
the national legislature cannot deal diI`€°t1Y· We it that enter into cost could likewise be controlled. If
peillted Oui? iii the Panama C0mPa"'·?/ case th? the the cost of idoing an intrastate business is in itself
Constitution has never beell regarded as denying te the permitted object of federal control, the extent
Congress the necessary 1'eS0¤1`€-es ef flexibility @(1 of the regulation of cost would be a question of
practicality, which will enable it to perform 1ts discyetion and not Of power?
function in laying down policies and establishing ·•· * * =•¤ =•· =•=
standards, while leaving to selected instrumentalities qt is not the province Of the Court to consider
the making of S¤b0I`di¤&t€ rules Wlthm PI`€?°mb€d the economic advantages or disadvantages of such
limits and the del>e1’¤1i¤ati0¤ ef facts tf) which the a centralized system. It is suiiicient to say that the
policy as declared by the legislature }S_ to apply- Federal Constitution does not provide for it. Our
But We said that the constant I`€°0_€Pm0¤ of the 4 growth and development have called for wide use
necessity and validity ef Such PI`0V1§1°¤S» aid the of the commerce power of the federal government
wide range of admi¤iStYai>iVe authority which has in its control over the expanded activities of inter-
been developed by mea-DS 0f them, cannot _b€ state commerce, and in protecting that commerce
allowed to obscure the limitations of the authority from burdens, interferences, and conspiracies to
to delegate, if Our constitutivnal SYSt€m IS te be restrain and monopolize it. But the authority of
maintained.” i the federal government may not be pushed to such
* * * * *_ * _ an extreme as to destroy the distinction, which the
"CongreSS C9~H¤0l7 delegate IGSISIBUVB I{°W€I`_l?° the commerce clause itself establishes, between com-
President to exercise an unfettered discretion to merce ‘among the several States’ and the internal
make whatever 1aWS he thillke may be needed 0I' i concerns of a State. The same answer must be
advisable for the rehabilitation and expansion of made to the contention that is based upon the
· trade or industry.” serious economic situation which led to the passage
* * * * * * _ of the Recovery Act,——the fall in prices, the decline
“Section 3 of the Ree0Ve1’Y Act is Without P¥`€°· in wages and employment, and the curtailment of
edent. It supplies 110 Sta¤daI‘dS for any tYa·d€» the market for commodities. Stress is laid upon
industry or activity. It does 110*5 uildertake tQ Pm- the great importance of maintaining wage distribu-
seribe rules of conduct te be applied lJ_0 Particular tions which would provide the necessary stimulus
states of fact determined by appfepfiate admin- in starting ‘the cumulative forces making for ex-
istrative procedure. Instead of prescmbing rules of pmdjng commercial activity} Without in any Way
conduct, it auth0riZeS the making ef 00deS $0 P_!‘€· disparaging this motive, it is enough to say that
scribe them. For that legislative undertaking, sect1on the recuperative eiforts of the federal government
3 sets up no standards, aside from the statement of must be made in a manner consistent with the
the general aims of rehabilitation, correction and authority granted by the Constitution."
4 5
_ _ _ _ February 14, 1934, contended that he was legally
Jllohloe Ce»rdo¤o_ lh og Seloelfehe oPlhloh_ ?oh' a member of the Commission, entitled to per-
olll`l`lhg lh the doolololb lll Whleh he Wee Jomed form the duties of that office and to receive the
by Jllellloo Stone, oollllllolllod do follows? compensation provided by law. After his death,
¢¢ThiS le deleeetleri mrmiiig riot. No meh the executor of his estate brought suit in the
plenitude of power is susceptible of transfer. The Court of Clanne to recover the Se·1eI`Y alleged
statute, however, aims at nothing less, as one can to be due the deceased f1‘0II1 October 8, 1933, to
learn both from its terms and from the administra- February 14, 1934.
tive practice under_it. Nothing less lis aimed at by The Cgurf, ef Claims eertjiied twe gpeeifie
the eede how Sllbmlllod le our S°l'llllhY·” questions to the Supreme Court as follows:
·•· =•· ·•· ·•· ·•= ·•= M . . .
"If this code had been adopted by Congress itself, ` Tre;leD8e1;1i;£;?;£S1X2;, Ostglgggollhgtoferilge elggiiiilgl
and not by the President on the advice of an i signer may be removed by the President for ineiii-
industrial association, it would even then be void I eieriey, riegleei; of duty, or melfeeeemee iri ori-lee;
unless authority to adopt 1t 1S included in the grant reetrieii or limit the power of the president to re_
of power ‘to regulate commerce with foreign nations 1 move el eommieeioiier except upon one or more of
and among the several states.’ United States Con- I the eeueee riemed?
Stlt“tleh» ello- I: See- 8» clause 3- "If the foregoing question is answered in the
"I find no authority in that grant for the regula- al&.rma'tiV€’ then,.
tion of wages and hours of labor in the intrastate <<2_ If the power of the preeideml to remove e
transactions that make up the defendants’ bus1ness." commissioner is restricted or limited as Shown by
the foregoing interrogatory and the answer made
II thereto, is such a restriction or limitation valid
under the Constitution of the United States?"
The Humphrey Case The Supreme Court answered both questions
Decided M dy 27, 1985 in ritige pflirmatllve. _ 1_ ti ith th lt
. . . . e ar-reac ing 1mp 1ca ions 0 e au 0I‘1 y
The Federal Trade oemmleelee Ael ereelflee sought to be estsbiished by the President in the
that members of that body Shall serve for S€VQH· Humphrey ease were pointed out by the Su-
Yeer terms With the PYOVISO that “e·hY CommlS' preme Court in its unanimous decision as fol-
sioner may be removed by the President for lower -
i“€h°l"“°y’ neglect Of dulyr Or malfeasance in C "If Congress is without authority to prescribe
oHice."
. . causes for removal of members of the trade com- 1
The late W11l1hm.E‘ Humphrey Ph Deeember mission and limit executive power of removal
10a 1931, Wes nommated by Preeldent Hoorer accordingly, that power at once becomes practically
to succeed hlmself as a member of the Commls- all-inclusive in respect of civil officers with the
sion. The nomination Was ccrlflrmed by the exception of the judiciary provided for by the
Seng/r,e and Mr_ Humphrey was duly eemmje- Constitution. The Solicitor General, at the bar,
for al term Seven years 8,pp3»I`€Dl)ly I`€COgD.1Z1D.g thlS to ·bB ·tI°UB? CCH}- r
liembei. 25, 1938. _ mlendable czrldtor, zlgreed ltlhat hls lliewi ill respect of
oe July lla lm Preellleel Reeeevele eel- l o§HI.‘i§LZ§,1‘§€Z€§it§2E3° fihi; Eifw F. Tim?
dressed a letter to the Commissioner asking for r - · pac 0
l _ _ U the Interstate Commerce Commission and the
the latter s resignation on the gropnd that the com or calms. We are thus confronted with the
alms and purpOSeS of the admmlstratloii Wlth serious question whether not only the members of
respect to the work of the Commission can be these quasi-legislative and quasi·judicial bodies, but
carried out more effectively with personnel of the judseeof the legislatire Court of Claims, exer-
my own Seleetiorijr The Preeideriiive letter eliS_ cising _lud1c1al power (Wzlliarns vi. United States,
claimed any reflection upon the Commissioner zgg S· 553} 5?l5'5g7)*.°°ht§h“e lh °ih"° eelr at
personally or upon his services. t G h easum 0 t 8 resldehh .
After some intervening correspondence, Mr. In other words, if the President’s assumption
Humphrey declined to resign and on Qctober 7, of authority to dismiss a Federal Trade Com-
1933 the President wrote him: "Effect1ve as of missioner without cause had been validated, the
this date you are hereby removed from the office Chief Executive would have been in a position
V of Commissioner of the Federal Trade Comm1s— to establish unquestioned control over several
s1on." Mr. Humphrey refused to acquiesce 1n important quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial
this action and until the time of his death on 7
l 6
bodies which have been set up by Congress to provided he paid a "reasonable rental annually."
carry out congressional mandates. At the end of five years, or prior thereto, the
The Supreme Court declared its position as _ debtor would be permitted to pay into court the
follows: appraised price of the property. He was also
"We think it plain under the Constitution that glvendfhe prtvllege, af askmg 3* reappralsal at
illimitable power of removal is not 'possessed by ehy tlme dutmg thle hVe'YeetI` Pemed ethd-_uPeh
the President in respect of officers of the character payment of the pI‘1Ce fiXed_e1tl1eI‘ by the original
of those just named. The authority of Congress, appraisal or the reappraisal it was provided
in creating quasi—1eeis1ative cr quaspiudicial that he would be given full possession of and
agencies, to require them to act in discharge of their title {ye the m·epei~t,y_
duties independently of executive oontrol cannot During this Stego of the prOC€,dur€ RadfO,rd,S
Ziff.'?§r£‘2§i§2iie3‘Edpt§‘£Z.-“E‘$h§§‘£ie";‘2§2$S’dtir§§ farm Wap appaaiaad at daaaa alptppah ata papk
which they shall continue, and to forbid their re- Offered m Open Court to pay $920509 m Cash
moval except for cause in the meantime. For it is for tha mortgaged pI`Op€r)°Y· _
quite evident that one who holds his office only ;. The Dletmet Court _etPPYeVed the hhdmge _et
during the pleasure of another, cannot be depended the referee app01I1ted 111 tl11S case and the DIS-
upon to maintain an attitude of independence trict COurt’S decree was affirmed by the Circuit
against the 1atter’s will- Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The
"The fundamental necessity of maintaining each Supreme Court in its unanimous deeieien de-
Sieiiiy i*3;‘;"r.%‘i;"*;`r?.L .?§§;‘;.°{"§??;..2£rVi°§’,$r§?.‘;;$c‘;t papa by Jaaaaa Baaaaaa aadaaad aa aaaa
director indirect, of either of the others, has often O; mortgage holders pmol, to the enactment Of
been stressed an is hardly open to serious ques- *= a Fpaeap-tampa act apd aapaaatad that
fiom So much is implied m me Very feet of the status with that which would have existed had
Separation Of the powers gf these departments by l3lZlZ€I' Act b€€1'1 Varlld. III COH-
the Constitution; and in the rule which recognizes nection the Court said:
their eS§e¤t19d <¤0·eq¤9d1tY- The Selmd _¤PP1}¤¤at10¤ "For centuries efforts to protect necessitous mort-
of a principle that makes one rnaster 1n his Own gagors have been persistent. Gradually the mort-
house precludes him from imposing his control in gage of ree] eetefe Wee transformed from d
tha house af ehethet whe is master there-), cenwleeyance upon condition into a lien; and failure
o t e mortgagor to pay on the day fixed ceased to
effect an automatic foreclosure. Courts of equity,
_ applying their established jurisdiction to relieve
The FrgZ1gr.Lemke Cage against penalties and forfeitures, created the
_ equity of redemption. Thus the mortgagor was
Deczded May 27, 1985 given a reasonable time to cure the default and to
, require a reconveyance of the property. Legislation
This. case •aI‘OSe Out of an attempt by the in many states carried this development further,
LOu1SV1lle JO1nt Stock Land Bank to foreclose . and preserved the mortgagor’s right to possession,
a mortgage amounting to $9,000 secured by a even after default, until the conclusion of fore-
farm owned by William W. Radford in Christian Closure P1‘0<>€€dinsS· But the statutory command
County, Kentucky. ~ . o that the mortgagor should not lose his property on
.Th€ mortgage was given fm, $8,000 in 1922 · ellefault had alwaye rested on the assumption that
and increased to $9,000 in 1924. In 1931 and in i b 6 guigggggeg Vrxlgg b°.t(;°IeI;€nSa;°€d Frhthe default
aubaaqdant raaaa Radfdpd defaulted an his winch the fettrrry XNZZ gr$t¤€i€E5d°tht €p§i'i]ZZti$§
eeveheht tc Rey te»XeS· In 1932 and 1933 he M afforded the mortgagor was, in effect, the granting
defaulted in l'11S promise to pay the installments of a stay. No instance has been found, except under
of interest and principal. In 1933 he also de- the Frazier-Lemke Act, of either a statute or deci-
faulted in his pygmise to keep the buildings sion compelling the mortgagee to relinquish the
mgm-ed_ property to the mortgagor free of the lien unless
After some preliminary negotiations, Radford tha data was pwd m full},
sought to take refuge in the relief provided by Discussing the constitutional questions in-
paragraph 7 of sub-section (s) of the Frazier- volved, the Court said:
Lemke Act. That section puI‘pOrted to _require "The bankruptcy power, like the other great sub-
tlle bankruptcy cOu1"t to stay all prOceed1ngS for stantive powers of Congress, is subject to the Fifth
five years during which the debtor would be Amendment. Under the bankruptcy power Congress
permitted to retain possession Of his property may Cl1SCl18·I`g€ the d€bl3OI',S personal Obllg3,lZIOI]., b€-
g 9
cause, unlike the States, it is not prohibited from _ . .
impairing the obligation of contracts. Compare oflicials from enforcement of restrictions upon
Mitchell c. Clark, 110 U. S. 633, 643. But the effect the production and disposition of Oll. _The Na-
of the Act here complained of is not the discharge tional Industrial Recovery Act 111 S€Gl»10I1 9 (0)
of R¤dl0l'¤- It is the taking 0f authorized the President to prohibit transporta-
Subsiamive rights lu Speeuie property acquired by tion in interstate and foreign commerce of
the Bank prlcr tc the Act: petroleum and petroleum products produced or
During the argument of the case, it was con- withdrawn from storage in excess of restrictions
tended that the Frazier-Lemke Act was justiued imposed by any of the states._ _ _
on the grounds of public policy which, it was The Supreme Court by_an eight to one decision
stated, demanded that farms be individually v (Justice Cardozo dissenting) held that:
owned by those who operate them; that to permit li (1) Seeuep 9 (e) ef the Reeeverv Act wee an
Wldeepreod roroorosuro cf mertaases Would ro' . attempted unconstitutional delegation of legislative
Sult in transferring ownership to great cOrpOra·- ` power to the President because Congress laid down
tions and a tendency toward creation of a v no standard by which the President should deter-
peasanf, class; there was gyaave danger at rl II11I1€ Wl1€I1 to €X€I'C1S(? the &LlthOI'1ty glV€I1 hlm.
the time of passage of the act that foreclosures (el That the Epfrecuuve orugréuaelng ee Sregurcrg
wld become WideS¤feed» are that an cme- EiflifilltlolllieGéfotlristtot Stiller;. ‘i?2,£é’;il
gegcéyl had arisen which requ1red congressional based his action
- 3 That Executive Orders and re ulations issued
Tll€ C0l1l`l» d60l&l`€dI , unheir the purported authority under the statute
"We have no occasion to consider either the were necessarily void.
causes or the extent of farm tenancy; or whether its I . h S C ,0 d . . H d
progressive increase would be arrested by the provi- ll liclcclllgl rc c upllcmc cull . cclclcll ca c
sions of the Act. Nor need we consider the occupa- _ attentwn te one or the abeurduuee llkely _ rc
tions of the beneficiaries of the legislation. These 9·l“lS€ lllld€l` 3 $YSl€m cf Wholosalo law making
are matters for the consideration of Congress; and by executive decree When it pointed out that in
the extensive provision for the refinancing of farm tho oaso of tho Panama Refining Company a
mortgages which Congresshas already made, shows lower court had solemnly issued an injunction
out the grcvuy ef the euueucu h“S.bee“.“l’pre' restraining the enforcement of section 4 of ar-
g,1et·=<%· The ¤m¤<>e ef fha Cm ¤¤ limited .*0 can 3 of the rclicicum occc at a time when
eciding whether the Frazier-Lemke Act as applied th t ,0- d.d ,6 · t Th ,0-
has taken from the Bank without compensation, and . ll ccc .lOll l llc. cms '. . G SEC lon was
given to Redfevd, rights in Specific property vvhieh included in the code in its original form but was
are of Substantial Value Compare ochoa v_ Hem. eliminated by an Executive Order of September
cmdez, 230 U. S. 139, 161; Loan Association v. 13, 1933, and subsequently reinstated by an
Tvpelw, 20 Wall- 655, 662, 664; In re Dillard, Fed. Executive Order of September 25, 1934. On this
Cas. No. 3, 912, p. 706. As we conclude that the point the Supreme Court Said;
Act as applied has done so, we must hold it void. u , ,
For the Fifth Amendment commands that, however _WhcteVe_r the cause cr the re*uure_tc glve epl?r°'
greet the Neeienis need, private property Shall me priate public notice of the change in the section,
be thus taken even for a wholly public use ·without Wltll. thc llccllll rllcll the pcrccnc cll`cc}°cd’ thc prcc'
just compensation. If the public interest requires, H ecurmg curllcrlrlec ccc the ccurlccl Were' elrke
and permits, the taking ef property ef ipdividuel ignorant of the alteration, the fact- 1S that the attack
mortgagees in order to relieve the necessities of ruth}? respect Wee upon 3* prcvlcrcu Welch old not
indiividualbmortgagors, resort must be had to pro- exlclr
cee ings y eminent domain; so that, throu h ’ T » · -
.....a..., li. burden of at relief .a.ad in li. fha Spprme Ceurgr gaelrge gf SMH §<<=>»
public interest may be borne by the public." ll c cnc yclc llrlcll W re l S cc amllloll O ull"
constitutionality was based, reads as follows:
IV "Section 9 (c) is brief and unambiguous. It does
not attempt to control the production of petroleum
The Amazon P€fI°Ol€U.II1 Case and petroleum products within a State. It does not
- seek to lay down rules for the guidance of state
Dcczdcd January 7> 1935 legislatures or state officers. It leaves to the States
This oggo arogo out of Suibg brought, by the and to their constituted authorities the determina-
. Panama Refining Company, the Amazon Petro- uin “;f&;Y?;rti’1g°‘iur‘;l;i‘ér; ;;};lraE§hl;e?;¤1rE)€u· gt d°‘>`S
· · no q 1 r1 y y re erence
leum Corpomltmn and Oféwrs to resrrm Federal to the basis, or extent, of the State’s limitation of
11
· · stete Wh hen or by Section (c), we find nothing in the Constitution
Oveligtlhheueignethzezei E)(l')I.l(:l1(:Zle;FI:lh)fl1&t conditiidns, the which restricts the Cellglless te elle eeleeelen O; the
President is to prohibit the transportation of the Pl`eSl‘lelll’ es glelllee 'lllle iellglleee may gee d e
amount of petroleum or petroleum products pro- pewelhlll the Olfleell ef lle e elee Ol m e cial teh
duced in exc.ess of the State’s permission. It estab- eemmleslell Sllell, es lt may Select iff eilieilhe teh ll .e
llSl1€S Ilo criterion to govern the Presidentls course, Purpose- OY, With I`€SP€Cl· tit) Sufih ah 6 Gga Kmilt IS
It does not require any finding by the President the quesemn eelleelllled mere Y.“’ll li e thehspe ie"
ne ei eondition oi his eetion_ The Congress in tion of oil, or of o1l produced in excess of what t e
Section o te) thus deeleres no noliey es to the State may allow. _If legislative power may thushbe
transportation of the excess production. So far as vested lll elle Pleeldellle ell ether grantee as he thee
_ this section is concerned, it gives to the President excess ef F?*`°Fi“°i*l°lt We See (lile lleteifell he dgutt htiilt
/ an unlimited authority to determine the policy and rr, lt may ellm ally , e .VieS/°e lvl lleipeeh Si ,6 ,e
to lay down the prohibition, or not to lay it down, l emllepelmtlell ef ell Wlt elle le eliellee e e e he
as he may see fit. And disobedience to his order is l leqllllelllelllle Tllelll. llelellellee . elmply ldeehee t .e
made a crime punishable by fine and imprisonment." S“l§t’i·i‘;`)°l (edi illlileeneilighlglefgi Zalllghlagleaflhielilleglaleeee
_ l Siu I`l.Z , , .
After discussing the general declarations of And if that legislative power may be given to the
policy in Title I of the Recovery Act, Some of _ President or other grantee, it would seem to follow
which were argued in support of the legality of that such power may similarly be conferred with
this attempted delegation of legislative author- respect to the transportation of other commodities
ity, the Court stated: in interstate ciommeroe wtitltior withtout xiefteirence to
“It is no answer to insist that deleterious conse- hhihhigtitggihhgtisiiigeirlihgieih is eereils;hn($iey esetgctvhrgt
qllelleee fellow elle lllellepellllellell el lllel ell*,—ell transportation and authority to permit or prohibit
exceeding state allowances. The Congress did not it ee the nersen or hoard or commission so chosen
prohibit that transportation. The Congress did not nitty think desirehle ii ’ ’
undertake to say that the transportation of ‘hot oill `
Wee ihlurieue- The Congress did not Say that treme- In this connection, the Court reviewed numer-
portation of that oil was ‘unfair competition} The ous precedents that involved the delegation of
Congress did not dehlare in wihht circumstances that Legislative newer, nointing out that in each in_
transportation shou be for i den, or require the ·
President to make any determination as to any facts Sllellee Cellgheee hee pheeehlbed ilalldarts engl
or circumstances. Among the numerous and diverse hae lleeeglllzeel tlleie there elle lmlhe eyen
objectives broadly stated, the President was not " Whlch Such delegallwn Cannot gO· The Geert
required to choose. The President was not required added:
to ascertain and proclaim the conditions prevailing all- section 9 te) were hold Valid it would be
. in the industry which made the prohibition neces- idle to pretend thet enything would be left of
sary. The Congress left the matter to the President limitations noon the newer of the Congress to
Without Standard eh lllle’ le be dealt with as he dele ate its laiw-making function The reasoning of
pleased The effort by ieeeheue and dlllgellll eell` the ieian decisions we have reviewed would be made
struction to supply a criterion still permits such a Sy ri their elietinetions nn etor Instead
breadth of authorized action as essentially to commit Vihhhhh all -t_ l mekin iunetiein thle Con ress
to the President the functions of a legislature rather 0 ligh Othmhiie I fi hw-t if b- t it hreoees
than those of an executive or administrative officer chu h Wl hh at 0 huh Sh lhhh as C
executing a declared legislative policy. We find it hihihshhl that hlh§hhh· ihhthhe bhhiesldhfihl Oh