Laissez-Faire Constitutionalism Survives

What if the Supreme Court doesn't retract it's Gilded Age positions on business during the Great Depression? This would mean things like no minimum wage, no (or few) wage and price controls, limited union protection, etc.

Would there eventually be a constitutional amendment or would the country just go along with it?
 
Last edited:
What if the Supreme Court doesn't retract it's Gilded Age positions on business during the Great Depression? This would mean things like do minimum wage, no (or few) wage and price controls, limited union protection, etc.

Would there eventually be a constitutional amendment or would the country just go along with it?

Well the 16th amendment was a response to the situation you described during the Gilded Age. The Supreme Court ruled that income taxes were unconstitutional on income earned on investments. The 16th Amendment made all income regardless of source taxable. So I guess it is likely that amendments would be passed when there was enough popular support for the concepts.
 
Well the 16th amendment was a response to the situation you described during the Gilded Age. The Supreme Court ruled that income taxes were unconstitutional on income earned on investments. The 16th Amendment made all income regardless of source taxable. So I guess it is likely that amendments would be passed when there was enough popular support for the concepts.
Err... I don't think it had anything to do with investment income. The Constitution explicitly states that the only direct taxes the Feds can impose are those that are proportioned according to the last Census. Assuming Income Tax is "direct" (and how can it not be? as in what is more direct), then it is clearly unconstitutional. So an amendment was passed to allow it.

no?
 
Before he went along with the 'Court Packing' scheme, F.D.R. mulled an Amendment to the Constitution specifically allowing for a clarification of the Commerce Clause (i.e. allowing Congress to regulate industry). Assuming Roosevelt doesn't threaten to reorganize the Court as IOTL, and the Court as a result does not begin to shift it's rulings, I can see this happening in the long term.

In the short term, however, you'll probably see Roosevelt doing his best to divide his programs (ala Unemployment Insurance) between state and federal control, in order to salvage what he can from the 'Horse and Buggy' Court.

One aspect of this is going to be the severe unpopularity of the SCOTUS itself. That's not going to do well in the 'keeping the respect of the public' on the part of the SCOTUS if said body keeps ruling popular programs unconstitutional. Which means that Roosevelt might be able to enact more drastic reforms of the system itself (a more structured reorganization plan, perhaps?).
 
Err... I don't think it had anything to do with investment income. The Constitution explicitly states that the only direct taxes the Feds can impose are those that are proportioned according to the last Census. Assuming Income Tax is "direct" (and how can it not be? as in what is more direct), then it is clearly unconstitutional. So an amendment was passed to allow it.

no?
The 16th Amendment was passed, at least in part if not completely, in response to the Supreme Court Case Pollock v. Framers' Loan & Trust (1895). The Supreme Court ruled that taxes on interests, divendends, and rent was direct taxes and therefore unconstitutional. The Supreme Court in that case said that general income taxes were indirect taxes and therefore constitutional. That is why I said the 16th Amendment had to deal with investment income.
 
If the Sixteenth Amendment had actually had language in it with the financial limits on its financial penetration that were used to "sell" it to the public, ( a maximum tax rate of a few percent, levied only on the very richest Americans ) the huge Federal establishment of the 20th and 21st Century would have been impossible and a far more capitalism-friendly society would have remained in place. Progressivism required the steady growth of the state, and that required the steady growth of revenue to the Federal government. Limit the revenue stream, and the growth of government is limited too. No one in the early 20th century would have voted for the 90% maximum tax rate that existed befor the JFK tax reforms.
 
The 16th Amendment was passed, at least in part if not completely, in response to the Supreme Court Case Pollock v. Framers' Loan & Trust (1895). The Supreme Court ruled that taxes on interests, divendends, and rent was direct taxes and therefore unconstitutional. The Supreme Court in that case said that general income taxes were indirect taxes and therefore constitutional. That is why I said the 16th Amendment had to deal with investment income.
:confused:Not doubting you. But WTF!?!? How on earth is an "Income Tax" indirect, but tax on interest direct?

Got to say, there are times when I wonder what the SCOTUS is smoking.
 
:confused:Not doubting you. But WTF!?!? How on earth is an "Income Tax" indirect, but tax on interest direct?

Got to say, there are times when I wonder what the SCOTUS is smoking.
It was very much a decision to protect the interests of the upper class in the United States. Nothing really unique about the Supreme Court making a decision to benefit the wealthy.
 
This could also result in a society like the thread with no Standing Armies. After all, as the size of domestic government has grown, so has the military establishment. (And the military establishment continues to grow as the other side shrinks, since 1980...)
 
Top