Difference between revisions of "United States v. Butler (1936)"
(Created page with "''United States v. Butler'' (1936) involved a challenge to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, a major New Deal program that attempted to stabilize the agricultural secto...") |
m (Admin moved page United States v. Butler to United States v. Butler (1936)) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | ''United States v. Butler'' (1936) involved a challenge to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, a major New Deal program that attempted to stabilize the agricultural sector of the economy by providing for farm subsidies. Funds for the subsidies were generated by an excise tax on the primary processors of the products involved. | + | ''United States v. Butler'' (1936) involved a challenge to the [[Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933]], a major New Deal program that attempted to stabilize the agricultural sector of the economy by providing for farm subsidies. Funds for the subsidies were generated by an excise tax on the primary processors of the products involved. |
| − | After articulating a broad view of the scope of the federal government’s constitutional authority to tax and spend, Justice Owen Roberts nevertheless concluded that the act is a plan “to regulate and control agricultural production, a matter beyond the powers delegated to the federal government.” “They are,” according to Roberts, “but means to an unconstitutional end.” For Roberts and his colleagues on the Court, the tax and spending program was merely a guise for a regulation of agriculture, a field reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. | + | After articulating a broad view of the scope of the federal government’s constitutional authority to tax and spend, Justice Owen Roberts nevertheless concluded that the act is a plan “to regulate and control agricultural production, a matter beyond the powers delegated to the federal government.” “They are,” according to Roberts, “but means to an unconstitutional end.” For Roberts and his colleagues on the Court, the [[Taxing and Spending Power|tax and spending]] program was merely a guise for a regulation of agriculture, a field reserved to the states by the [[Tenth Amendment]] to the [[U.S. Constitution|Constitution]]. |
==== Ellis Katz ==== | ==== Ellis Katz ==== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Last Updated: 2006 | ||
SEE ALSO: [[Commerce among the States]]; [[Taxing and Spending Power]]; [[Tenth Amendment]] | SEE ALSO: [[Commerce among the States]]; [[Taxing and Spending Power]]; [[Tenth Amendment]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Category:Supreme Court Cases]] | ||
Latest revision as of 19:53, 21 October 2019
United States v. Butler (1936) involved a challenge to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, a major New Deal program that attempted to stabilize the agricultural sector of the economy by providing for farm subsidies. Funds for the subsidies were generated by an excise tax on the primary processors of the products involved.
After articulating a broad view of the scope of the federal government’s constitutional authority to tax and spend, Justice Owen Roberts nevertheless concluded that the act is a plan “to regulate and control agricultural production, a matter beyond the powers delegated to the federal government.” “They are,” according to Roberts, “but means to an unconstitutional end.” For Roberts and his colleagues on the Court, the tax and spending program was merely a guise for a regulation of agriculture, a field reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.
Ellis Katz
Last Updated: 2006
SEE ALSO: Commerce among the States; Taxing and Spending Power; Tenth Amendment