History HW - Write 2 page paper,answer 13 questions, create complex thesis per instructions

WHY IT MATTERED The 1935 Wagner Act was one of the most important pieces of New Deal legislation. Conservative justices on the Supreme Court, however, thought New Deal legislation increased the power of the federal govern- ment beyond what the Constitution allowed. By the time the Jones and Laughlin case reached the Court in 1937, the Court had already struck down numerous New Deal laws. It appeared to many as if the Wagner Act was doomed.

In February 1937, Roosevelt announced a plan to appoint enough justices to build a Court majority in favor of the New Deal. Critics immediately accused Roosevelt of trying to pack the Supreme Court, thus crippling the Constitution’s system of checks and bal- ances.

Two months later, the Court delivered its opinion in Jones and Laughlin and at about the same time upheld other New Deal legislation as well. Most histo- rians agree that the Court’s switch was not a response to Roosevelt’s “Court-packing” plan, which already seemed destined for failure. Nevertheless, the decision resolved a potential crisis.

HISTORICAL IMPACT The protection that labor unions gained by the Wagner Act helped them to grow quickly. Union mem- bership among non-farm workers grew from around 12 percent in 1930 to around 31 percent by 1950. This increase helped improve the economic standing of many working-class Americans in the years following World War II.

Most significantly, Jones and Laughlin greatly broad- ened Congress’s power. Previously, neither the federal nor the state governments were thought to have suffi- cient power to control the large corporations and hold- ing companies doing business in many states. Now, far beyond the power to regulate interstate commerce, Congress had the power to regulate anything “essential or appropriate” to that function. For example, federal laws barring discrimination in hotels and restaurants rest on the Court’s allowing Congress to decide what is an “essential or appropriate” subject of regulation.

More recently, the Court has placed tighter limits on Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce. In United States v. Lopez (1995), the Court struck down a law that banned people from having hand- guns near a school. The Court said Congress was not justified in basing this law on its power to regulate interstate commerce.

The New Deal 709

Choosing to work despite the strike, a storekeeper at the Jones and Laughlin Steel Corporation tries to pass through picket lines.

THINKING CRITICALLYTHINKING CRITICALLY

CONNECT TO HISTORY 1. Developing Historical Perspective Lawyers for Jones

and Laughlin said that the Wagner Act violated the Tenth Amendment. Chief Justice Hughes said that since the act fell within the scope of the commerce clause, the Tenth Amendment did not apply. Read the Tenth Amendment and then write a paragraph defending Hughes’s position.

SEE SKILLBUILDER HANDBOOK, PAGE R11.

CONNECT TO TODAY 2.

Visit the links for Historic Decisions of the Supreme Court and read the opening sections of United States v. Lopez. There, Chief Justice Rehnquist offers a summary of the Court’s interpretation of the commerce clause over the years. Summarize in your own words Rehnquist’s descrip- tion of the current meaning of the commerce clause.

IINTERNET ACTIVITY CLASSZONE.COM

▼