Thank you for visiting SNEWPapers!
Sign up free
Letter to Editor
July 25, 1935
Montana Labor News
Butte, Silver Bow County, Montana
What is this article about?
Congressman Joseph P. Monaghan criticizes the Supreme Court for declaring New Deal laws like the Railroad Pension Act, NRA, and Guffey Coal Bill unconstitutional, blocking the people's will expressed through elected officials. He advocates for an act restoring congressional power by prohibiting the Court from invalidating laws.
Clipping
OCR Quality
92%
Excellent
Full Text
A CONGRESSMAN COMMENTS
By Hon. Joseph P. Monaghan
July 20th, 1935
CONGRESS IN A FOG
On November 8, 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt swept into office by an overwhelming vote as the leader of our Republic and with him Congressmen and Senators everywhere pledged to a "new deal" in Government. But alas and alack, the people's will could not rule because while able to change their elected Representatives, Senators and chosen leader of the Republic, the nine judges of the Supreme Court are selected for life and cannot be removed except for "bad behavior."
Those nine men have the power of life and death over the statutes which some people of America have come to believe is the way out of the depression and which are designed to promote liberty and justice. As a consequence of that power and of the inability of the American public to express their attitude to these men, within the last three months three powerful laws for the promotion of human justice and human welfare were declared unconstitutional.
It has made a mess, a muddle and a mirage on Capital Hill. The Supreme Court declared the Railroad Pension Bill unconstitutional in toto while it could have said that certain parts should not operate as to certain railroads and that Congress could not have intended that, thus exercising its authority as an interpretative body.
Judge Krauthoff agreed with me that the Supreme Court deciding NRA in the Schechter case should have said "The NRA does not apply to the sale of chickens sold in New York to a citizen of New York." That would have left the beneficial points of the NRA intact and would have been a judicial act of interpretation rather than an act of nullification.
An unjust criticism of the President arose because in recommending the Guffey Coal Bill the President said: "You can find a thousand and one opinions as to the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of this bill." and asserted Congress should not let doubts as to its constitutionality perturb them.
It isn't that Congressmen believe the Guffey Coal Bill, NRA and Railroad Pension unconstitutional. Rather they believe the Supreme Court might hold them unconstitutional.
The solution is restoration of legislative power in the Congress of the United States by adoption of an act prohibiting the Supreme Court from declaring acts of Congress invalid. Let them interpret and adjudicate only.
By Hon. Joseph P. Monaghan
July 20th, 1935
CONGRESS IN A FOG
On November 8, 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt swept into office by an overwhelming vote as the leader of our Republic and with him Congressmen and Senators everywhere pledged to a "new deal" in Government. But alas and alack, the people's will could not rule because while able to change their elected Representatives, Senators and chosen leader of the Republic, the nine judges of the Supreme Court are selected for life and cannot be removed except for "bad behavior."
Those nine men have the power of life and death over the statutes which some people of America have come to believe is the way out of the depression and which are designed to promote liberty and justice. As a consequence of that power and of the inability of the American public to express their attitude to these men, within the last three months three powerful laws for the promotion of human justice and human welfare were declared unconstitutional.
It has made a mess, a muddle and a mirage on Capital Hill. The Supreme Court declared the Railroad Pension Bill unconstitutional in toto while it could have said that certain parts should not operate as to certain railroads and that Congress could not have intended that, thus exercising its authority as an interpretative body.
Judge Krauthoff agreed with me that the Supreme Court deciding NRA in the Schechter case should have said "The NRA does not apply to the sale of chickens sold in New York to a citizen of New York." That would have left the beneficial points of the NRA intact and would have been a judicial act of interpretation rather than an act of nullification.
An unjust criticism of the President arose because in recommending the Guffey Coal Bill the President said: "You can find a thousand and one opinions as to the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of this bill." and asserted Congress should not let doubts as to its constitutionality perturb them.
It isn't that Congressmen believe the Guffey Coal Bill, NRA and Railroad Pension unconstitutional. Rather they believe the Supreme Court might hold them unconstitutional.
The solution is restoration of legislative power in the Congress of the United States by adoption of an act prohibiting the Supreme Court from declaring acts of Congress invalid. Let them interpret and adjudicate only.
What sub-type of article is it?
Political
Persuasive
What themes does it cover?
Politics
Constitutional Rights
Economic Policy
What keywords are associated?
Supreme Court
New Deal
Nra
Railroad Pension
Guffey Coal Bill
Constitutional
Congress Power
Schechter Case
What entities or persons were involved?
Hon. Joseph P. Monaghan
Letter to Editor Details
Author
Hon. Joseph P. Monaghan
Main Argument
the supreme court, appointed for life, is overriding the elected branches by declaring key new deal laws unconstitutional, frustrating the people's will; congress should enact legislation prohibiting the court from invalidating acts of congress, limiting it to interpretation and adjudication.
Notable Details
References Railroad Pension Bill Declared Unconstitutional In Toto
Cites Schechter Case On Nra And Chicken Sales In New York
Mentions Guffey Coal Bill And President's Comments On Its Constitutionality
Agrees With Judge Krauthoff On Judicial Interpretation Vs. Nullification