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 Mr. William Green, president of American Federation of Labor

Collection:: Economics Books

28 UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE UNITED STATES Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the Supreme Court of Missouri, holding the Act to be valid and constitutional, stating the answer to the claim that the law was ex post facto to be that the law is not retroactive but only becomes effective within three months after its passage. As to the constitutional question, the Supreme Court held that the State had the right under its police power to enact such legislation. The question before the court in that case is totally different from any of the questions presented in the proposed legislation and cer- tainly is not an authority to support the unconstitutionality of the pending bill. Not a single case cited in the brief supports its contention, several of the cases, as above pointed out, and especially the Frothingham case, infra, show that the proposed legislation is constitutional. Commonwealth of Massachusetts ». Mellon and Frothingham ov. Mellon (262 U. S. 447), is also cited in the brief to support the con- tention that the proposed act is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court in this case had under consideration the maternity act (42 Stat. 224). The provisions of the maternity act, in so far as con- cerns the appropriation of money by Congress to be allocated to the States upon the acceptance of the benefits and compliance with the requirements by the States, are analagous with the provisions of the pending bill. It was contended, in that case, that the act was un- constitutional. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal because of lack of jurisdiction and not upon the merits of the case. There are certain statements of the court which clearly indicate that the court, however, was of the opinion that the act was constitutional and which also clearly answer some of the contentions made in the brief of the association as to the proposed legislation. The court stated, page 480: Probably it would be sufficient to point out, that the powers of the State are not invaded, since the statute imposes no obligation, but simply extends an option which the State is free to accept or reject. That is the very kernel of the principle proposed in Senate bill 3060. At page 482, the court further stated: What, then, is the nature of the right of the State here asserted, and how is it affected by this statute? Reduced to its simplest terms, it is alleged that the statute constitutes an attempt to legislate outside the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution and within the field of local powers exclusively reserved to the States. Nothing is added to the force or effect of this assertion by the further incidental allegations that the ulterior purpose of Congress thereby was to induce the States to yield a portion of their sovereign rights that the burden of the. appropriations falls unequally upon the several States; and that there is imposed upon the States an illegal and unconstitutional option either to yield to the Federal Government a part of their reserved rights or lose their share of the moneys appropriated. But what burden is imposed upon the States, unequally or other- wise? Certainly there is none, unless it be the burden of taxation and that falls upon their inhabitants, who are within the taxing power of Congress as well as that of the States where they reside. Nor does the statute require the States to do or to yield anything. If Congress enacted it with the ulterior purpose of tempting them to yield that purpose may be effectively frustrated by the simple expedient of not vielding. It seems that if the country were passing upon Senate bill 3060 it could not better express it; the language thus used with reference to the maternity statute would apply with equal force to Senate bill 2060. In the last analysis, the complaint of the plaintiff State is brought to the naked contention that Congress has usurped the reserved powers of the several States

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