Carter v. Carter Coal Company (1936) - Revision history

Admin: Admin moved page Carter v. Carter Coal Company to Carter v. Carter Coal Company (1936)

2019-10-18T08:37:12Z

Admin moved page Carter v. Carter Coal Company to Carter v. Carter Coal Company (1936)

Admin at 03:53, 18 July 2018

2018-07-18T03:53:08Z

Admin at 00:37, 3 July 2018

2018-07-03T00:37:31Z

Morgannoel18 at 07:52, 22 October 2017

2017-10-22T07:52:43Z

Admin at 15:32, 28 September 2017

2017-09-28T15:32:52Z

Nicole: Created page with "This Supreme Court case deals with two very different conceptions of federalism and the scope of Congress’s commerce powers. The first conception is dual federalism and assu..."

2017-01-23T21:30:29Z

Created page with "This Supreme Court case deals with two very different conceptions of federalism and the scope of Congress’s commerce powers. The first conception is dual federalism and assu..."

New page

This Supreme Court case deals with two very different conceptions of federalism and the scope of Congress’s commerce powers. The first conception is dual federalism and assumes that the state and national governments are coequal and have sovereignty over distinct spheres. The second conception is national supremacy or cooperative federalism. In this latter conception, the national government is supreme and is not forbidden from using its powers to affect the constitutional space reserved to the states. In effect, the federal government and the states are junior partners in a cooperative effort to establish policies. The more broadly the commerce clause is read, the more the national government can affect the states. The ''Carter'' case is a good example of these competing views of federalism.

In 1935 Congress passed the Bituminous Coal Conservation Act in an attempt to bring stability in the coal industry, which was plagued by overproduction, poor wages, and unsafe working conditions. The act required that boards be established that would promulgate regulations on wages, hours, labor relations, and coal production. Producers were encouraged to participate in the program through a tax rebate incentive. A tax of 15 percent was assessed on the value of all coal produced. If a producer participated in the program, they received 90 percent of the tax back in the form of a rebate. Congress stated that it had the authority to pass the act pursuant to its power to regulate interstate commerce. The Carter Coal Company decided that it could not afford to opt out of the program. However, some of its shareholders felt differently and sued the company in an attempt to stop its participation.

Justice George Sutherland’s majority opinion in ''Carter'' advocated a strong dual federalism position. He emphasized that the states existed before the Constitution, and that the Constitution only conferred limited powers to the national government. Therefore, Congress’s powers must be interpreted narrowly; otherwise, the states could be reduced “to little more than geographical subdivisions of the national domain.” Sutherland interpreted interstate commerce very narrowly. He argued that coal mining is production, a purely local activity that precedes commerce. If coal mining affects interstate commerce, it is an indirect effect and therefore beyond the reach of the Commerce Clause. Federal regulatory power only attaches when the commodities are in transit; therefore, the Bituminous Coal Conservation Act was unconstitutional.

The ''Carter'' case marked the apex of the Court’s dual federalism jurisprudence and is credited with triggering Franklin Roosevelt’s court-packing scheme. The following year, 1937, the Court changed directions and supported the national supremacy view of federalism.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| '''BIBLIOGRAPHY:'''
Lee Epstein and Thomas G. Walker, ''Constitutional Law for a Changing America: Institutional Powers and Constraints'', 4th ed. (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2001); and Kermit L. Hall, ed., ''The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States'' (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992).
|}

==== Barry Sweet ====

SEE ALSO: [[Commerce among the States]]; [[Hammer v. Dagenhart]]; [[Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States]]; [[National Labor Relations Board v. Jones and Laughlin Steel Corporation]]; [[Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States]]; [[Tenth Amendment]]; [[United States v. E. C. Knight Company]]; [[Wickard v. Filburn]]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-This [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] case deals with two very different conceptions of [[federalism]] and the scope of Congress’s commerce powers. The first conception is dual federalism and assumes that the state and national governments are coequal and have [[sovereignty]] over distinct spheres. The second conception is national supremacy or cooperative federalism. In this latter conception, the national government is supreme and is not forbidden from using its powers to affect the constitutional space reserved to the states. In effect, the federal government and the states are junior partners in a cooperative effort to establish policies. The more broadly the commerce clause is read, the more the national government can affect the states. The ''Carter'' case is a good example of these competing views of federalism.
+This [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] case deals with two very different conceptions of [[federalism]] and the scope of [[U.S. Congress|Congress’s]] commerce powers. The first conception is [[Dual Federalism|dual federalism]] and assumes that the state and national governments are coequal and have [[sovereignty]] over distinct spheres. The second conception is national supremacy or [[Cooperative Federalism|cooperative federalism]]. In this latter conception, the national government is supreme and is not forbidden from using its powers to affect the constitutional space reserved to the states. In effect, the federal government and the states are junior partners in a cooperative effort to establish policies. The more broadly the commerce clause is read, the more the national government can affect the states. The ''Carter'' case is a good example of these competing views of federalism.
-In 1935 Congress passed the Bituminous Coal Conservation Act in an attempt to bring stability in the coal industry, which was plagued by overproduction, poor wages, and unsafe working conditions. The act required that boards be established that would promulgate regulations on wages, hours, labor relations, and coal production. Producers were encouraged to participate in the program through a tax rebate incentive. A tax of 15 percent was assessed on the value of all coal produced. If a producer participated in the program, they received 90 percent of the tax back in the form of a rebate. Congress stated that it had the authority to pass the act pursuant to its power to regulate interstate commerce. The Carter Coal Company decided that it could not afford to opt out of the program. However, some of its shareholders felt differently and sued the company in an attempt to stop its participation.
+In 1935 Congress passed the Bituminous Coal Conservation Act in an attempt to bring stability in the coal industry, which was plagued by overproduction, poor wages, and unsafe working conditions. The act required that boards be established that would promulgate regulations on wages, hours, labor relations, and coal production. Producers were encouraged to participate in the program through a tax rebate incentive. A tax of 15 percent was assessed on the value of all coal produced. If a producer participated in the program, they received 90 percent of the tax back in the form of a rebate. Congress stated that it had the authority to pass the act pursuant to its power to regulate [[Commerce among the States|interstate commerce]]. The Carter Coal Company decided that it could not afford to opt out of the program. However, some of its shareholders felt differently and sued the company in an attempt to stop its participation.
-Justice George Sutherland’s majority opinion in ''Carter'' advocated a strong dual federalism position. He emphasized that the states existed before the Constitution, and that the Constitution only conferred limited powers to the national government. Therefore, Congress’s powers must be interpreted narrowly; otherwise, the states could be reduced “to little more than geographical subdivisions of the national domain.” Sutherland interpreted interstate commerce very narrowly. He argued that coal mining is production, a purely local activity that precedes commerce. If coal mining affects interstate commerce, it is an indirect effect and therefore beyond the reach of the Commerce Clause. Federal regulatory power only attaches when the commodities are in transit; therefore, the Bituminous Coal Conservation Act was unconstitutional.
+Justice George Sutherland’s majority opinion in ''Carter'' advocated a strong dual federalism position. He emphasized that the states existed before the [[U.S. Constitution|Constitution]], and that the Constitution only conferred limited powers to the national government. Therefore, Congress’s powers must be interpreted narrowly; otherwise, the states could be reduced “to little more than geographical subdivisions of the national domain.” Sutherland interpreted interstate commerce very narrowly. He argued that coal mining is production, a purely local activity that precedes commerce. If coal mining affects interstate commerce, it is an indirect effect and therefore beyond the reach of the Commerce Clause. Federal regulatory power only attaches when the commodities are in transit; therefore, the Bituminous Coal Conservation Act was unconstitutional.
-The ''Carter'' case marked the apex of the Court’s dual federalism jurisprudence and is credited with triggering Franklin Roosevelt’s court-packing scheme. The following year, 1937, the Court changed directions and supported the national supremacy view of federalism.
+The ''Carter'' case marked the apex of the Court’s dual federalism jurisprudence and is credited with triggering [[Roosevelt, Franklin D.|Franklin Roosevelt’s]] court-packing scheme. The following year, 1937, the Court changed directions and supported the national supremacy view of federalism.
 {| class="wikitable"

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:37, 3 July 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	This Supreme Court case deals with two very different conceptions of federalism and the scope of Congress’s commerce powers. The first conception is dual federalism and assumes that the state and national governments are coequal and have sovereignty over distinct spheres. The second conception is national supremacy or cooperative federalism. In this latter conception, the national government is supreme and is not forbidden from using its powers to affect the constitutional space reserved to the states. In effect, the federal government and the states are junior partners in a cooperative effort to establish policies. The more broadly the commerce clause is read, the more the national government can affect the states. The ''Carter'' case is a good example of these competing views of federalism.	+	This [[Supreme Court of the United States\|Supreme Court]] case deals with two very different conceptions of [[federalism]] and the scope of Congress’s commerce powers. The first conception is dual federalism and assumes that the state and national governments are coequal and have [[sovereignty]] over distinct spheres. The second conception is national supremacy or cooperative federalism. In this latter conception, the national government is supreme and is not forbidden from using its powers to affect the constitutional space reserved to the states. In effect, the federal government and the states are junior partners in a cooperative effort to establish policies. The more broadly the commerce clause is read, the more the national government can affect the states. The ''Carter'' case is a good example of these competing views of federalism.

	In 1935 Congress passed the Bituminous Coal Conservation Act in an attempt to bring stability in the coal industry, which was plagued by overproduction, poor wages, and unsafe working conditions. The act required that boards be established that would promulgate regulations on wages, hours, labor relations, and coal production. Producers were encouraged to participate in the program through a tax rebate incentive. A tax of 15 percent was assessed on the value of all coal produced. If a producer participated in the program, they received 90 percent of the tax back in the form of a rebate. Congress stated that it had the authority to pass the act pursuant to its power to regulate interstate commerce. The Carter Coal Company decided that it could not afford to opt out of the program. However, some of its shareholders felt differently and sued the company in an attempt to stop its participation.		In 1935 Congress passed the Bituminous Coal Conservation Act in an attempt to bring stability in the coal industry, which was plagued by overproduction, poor wages, and unsafe working conditions. The act required that boards be established that would promulgate regulations on wages, hours, labor relations, and coal production. Producers were encouraged to participate in the program through a tax rebate incentive. A tax of 15 percent was assessed on the value of all coal produced. If a producer participated in the program, they received 90 percent of the tax back in the form of a rebate. Congress stated that it had the authority to pass the act pursuant to its power to regulate interstate commerce. The Carter Coal Company decided that it could not afford to opt out of the program. However, some of its shareholders felt differently and sued the company in an attempt to stop its participation.

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:32, 28 September 2017
Line 16:		Line 16:

	SEE ALSO: [[Commerce among the States]]; [[Hammer v. Dagenhart]]; [[Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States]]; [[National Labor Relations Board v. Jones and Laughlin Steel Corporation]]; [[Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States]]; [[Tenth Amendment]]; [[United States v. E. C. Knight Company]]; [[Wickard v. Filburn]]		SEE ALSO: [[Commerce among the States]]; [[Hammer v. Dagenhart]]; [[Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States]]; [[National Labor Relations Board v. Jones and Laughlin Steel Corporation]]; [[Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States]]; [[Tenth Amendment]]; [[United States v. E. C. Knight Company]]; [[Wickard v. Filburn]]
		+
		+	[[Category:Supreme Court Cases]]

← Older revision	Revision as of 08:37, 18 October 2019
(No difference)

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 ==== Barry Sweet ====
 SEE ALSO: [[Commerce among the States]]; [[Hammer v. Dagenhart]]; [[Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States]]; [[National Labor Relations Board v. Jones and Laughlin Steel Corporation]]; [[Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States]]; [[Tenth Amendment]]; [[United States v. E. C. Knight Company]]; [[Wickard v. Filburn]]
 [[Category:Supreme Court Cases]]