Unemployment in the United States

Bibliographic data

Monograph

Identifikator:: 1828236179

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-226169

Document type:: Monograph

Title:: Unemployment in the United States

Place of publication:: Washington

Publisher:: United States, Government Printing Office

Year of publication:: 1930

Scope:: II, 193 Seiten

Digitisation:: 2022

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Chapter

Document type:: Monograph

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: Statement of Frank L. Peckham

Collection:: Economics Books

dor as. lo he rk T- nt r= ed te qr {32 0 m 1i- er y ot 18 1t ns 1e In ~f at “A f UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE UNITED STATES 155 tion could do. And, of course, I direct my statements to Senate bill 3060. One or.two of the witnesses that have appeared before the com- mittee quoted from the decision of the Supreme Court in Massachu- setts v. Mellon, in support of their statement that the Supreme Court had held the maternity act unconstitutional. I merely wish to clear up the question that they have raised about that. The court specifi- cally declined to pass upon or discuss the constitutionality of that act. The court said, further: We have no power per se to review and annul acts of Congress on the ground that they are unconstitutional. That question may be considered only when the justification for some direet injury suffered or threatened, presenting a justiciable issue, is made to rest upon such an act. The portions of that opinion that have been presented to your committee in support of the act as constitutional were those parts of the opinion wherein the court set out to explain that the plaintiffs in these two suits had not suffered the sort of direct injury that the court said must be brought before them before a justiciable issue could be presented. Reference has been made, as usual, to the general-welfare clause of the Constitution and, in response to the suggestions that the so-called general-welfare clause of the Constitution grants to Con- gress authority to legislate upon matters not directly committed to Federal control under the Constitution, and that there are fields beyond those embraced within the limited powers delegated to the Federal Government in which it is appropriate the Congress should legislate for what it considers the general welfare of the country, 1 wish to call the committee’s attention to the following pronounce- ment of the Supreme Court of the United States, covering the period from the early days of the Republic and coming down to the present time and, if the committee please, I have excerpts from these opinions which I would like to submit. I would like to state the titles of the cases and the dates of the decisions and: ask leave to include in the record brief quotations from each of these decisions. The CuarrmaN. Without reading them? Mr. Proxram. Without reading them. Wa Crarman. Well, that is your privilege: you can exercise that. . Mr. PEckaaM. And in that connection T cite the case of New York v. Miln (11 Pet. 102, 139), decided in 1837; In re Raher (140 U. S. 545), decided in 1890; Kansas ». Colorado (206 U. S. 46), decided in 1906, . Mr. Tucker. That is Judge Brewer’s opinion? Mr. Pecan. Yes, sir. : Hammer ». Dagenhart (247 U. S. 251), decided in 1918. I would like to direct attention to the fact that in the Dagenhart case the dissenting opinion was not based upon any recognition of the authority of the Congress to legislate in matters of local concern for the general welfare but, on the contrary, was predicated upon the belief of the minority of the court that the power to regulate commerce between the States included the power to prohibit the transportation In interstate commerce of articles that Congress deemed should be

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Unemployment in the United States

Monograph

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Monograph

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation