Showing posts with label Franklin Roosevelt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Franklin Roosevelt. Show all posts

Friday, June 22, 2012

When the Supreme Court Struck Back at Roosevelt 1/2

by Nomad
In the past I have written about Roosevelt’s forgotten battle with the Supreme Court in 1933 but I’d like to return to this lost bit of history for a closer look. It isn’t all about our grandfather’s history because at this time, in these days prior to the Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of President Obama’s healthcare reform program, the parallels, I think, are striking. 
It isn’t the first time the executive and the judicial branches have been at loggerheads and perhaps lessons can be learned from history.

Action Now
The 1932 presidential election was not even close. President Herbert Hoover’s failed policies and his apparent detachment from the trials of his own people during the Great Depression won his few votes. At no time in American history had the conditions been quite as unforgiving as this and yet Hoover seemed out of touch with the average Americans. 

Like most economists of his age, Hoover on the other hand had warned against "mindless experimentation" in established government policy. He felt that the best policy was to wait things out, the national economy would recover on its own. It always had before.

Monday, June 18, 2012

The March of the Bonus Army- Washington, June 1932

by Nomad

The story of the Bonus March on Washington in the summer of 1932 isn't as famous as it should be. Here's a post about the protests and how they were ended by brute force.


Where the March Began

The 1932 march of the Bonus Army has largely been forgotten by the public. The reason for this collective amnesia is perhaps easy to understand. Details about why it started and how it ended do not fit in well with how we Americans think of themselves and our country. Moreover, a few of the people of we think of as heroes today played less than heroic roles in the affair.

The origins of the march began much earlier than 1932. They can be traced back to the days after the Armistice of the First World War. Returning veterans came home and were dismayed to learn of the differences between their wages compared to those in the civilian branch of the selective service. State-side draftees made quite a bit more than those that had actually fought and risked their lives. The war veterans demanded that some kind of compensations be paid for their lost income. During those boom years, Congress tended to agree.

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Franklin Roosevelt's Forgotten War with The Supreme Court

by Nomad
As the Supreme Court deliberates the constitutionality of President Obama's health care plan, it might come as a surprise to a lot of people that this isn't the first time a progressive president has come up against a conservative Supreme Court. Franklin Roosevelt encountered similar problems when he attempted to implement his own economic reforms.

Of the Court's overreach, the president in his ninth fireside chat told the American people, "To the far-sighted, it is far-reaching in its possibilities of injury to America."

Battle Between the Branches

This event of our day and age would not be the first time the Supreme Court has been accused of activism and overstepping its prescribed powers. And this isn't the first time a crisis has developed between the Judicial and the Executive branches of the United States Government.
On March 9, 1937, Franklin Roosevelt, speaking by radio to the nation described the problem of an obstructionist Supreme Court, and the need for a drastic re-evaluation of the process. 
Roosevelt stated the problem very directly "The Court" he claimed,"has been acting not as a judicial body, but as a policy-making body." He went on to cite, with quotes of dissenting opinions from other High Court judges, instances after instance in which the Court went beyond its duty.
I want - as all Americans want - an independent judiciary as proposed by the framers of the Constitution. That means a Supreme Court that will enforce the Constitution as written, that will refuse to amend the Constitution by the arbitrary exercise of judicial power - in other words by judicial say-so. It does not mean a judiciary so independent that it can deny the existence of facts which are universally recognized.
His proposal was that "hereafter when a Judge reaches the age of seventy, a new and younger Judge shall be added to the Court automatically."