By Kevin “Coach” Collins
In 1937 Franklin Roosevelt asked his Democrat controlled Congress to help him shred the constitution. He wanted to change the nine member status quo of the Supreme Court and pack the Court with six additional sycophantic judges who would rule in his favor and save his New Deal. Congress turned him down because it recognized the plan would rip the cover off their all-out socialist plans and feared the electoral beating it would lead to in 1938. The beating came anyway but historians say it would have been worse had the Congress not stopped Roosevelt.
Will today’s Democrats choose self-preservation, as their ancestors did when they stopped Roosevelt’s manifestly unconstitutional plans; or will they stand behind Barack Obama and his unconstitutional power grabs?
Roosevelt’s undoing
After losing a unanimous decision in a challenge to the constitutionality of his National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) in 1935 (Schechter Poultry vs. United States), Roosevelt was furious and determined to put the Court under his thumb.
The NIRA was the centerpiece of his Administration, so he could see what the decision meant to his plans for America. He immediately searched to find a way to circumvent the Supreme Court and its “pesky” insistence upon following the Constitution. A plan to pack the Court with six new members became his weapon of choice.
Roosevelt asked his Congress to pass the benign sounding Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 which would allow an additional new Justice on the Court for each sitting Justice over 70 years and six months of age.
In spite of having won an Electoral College vote by the staggering margin of 523 to 8 in his 1936 reelection, Roosevelt overestimated his mandate. He could not force the overwhelmingly Democrat Congress to pass it. They were afraid of the ballot box consequences if they did.
They had good reason to be worried.
The election of 1938 saw the Democrats lose 78 House and six Senate seats.
This year the Democrats are facing another very serious beating at the polls and their president does not care about the Constitution either. Since the first rule for any politician of either party is self-preservation, let’s see if Congressional Democrats have the stomach to back him up.
Use this site to contact your Congressional Representative: https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml
To learn more use these links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schechter_Poultry_Corp._v._United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1938#New_York
Have you answered this week’s CiR.com poll?
In this world you may have knowledge or you may have repose, but you may not have both.
What have you done today to deserve to live in America?
Comments on this or any other coachisright.com essay can be sent by following the posting instructions below.
Related posts:
- The delusional Democrats plot Obama’s “Path to 270”: saying it doesn’t make it so
- Ignore the Constitution and save lives!
- Desperate Democrats want to: Kill the Constitution destroy our economy lie and suspend elections
- Southern Democrats treated Blacks like farm animals with sterilization and fake syphilis treatments
- Every Democrat once voted “No” on 14th Amendment; now they want to twist it to make Obama our king?
Loading ...
this time it well be FORWARD MARCH onward COMMUNIST SOLDIER.
Coach : Sounds as if Roosevelt's Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 shares much in common with present day ObamaCare.
Both are an Unconstitutional attempt to usurp power; unprecedented acts of Presidential hubris; and the result of a Socialist-Progressive (read Old style "Commie"), President running flamingly amok.
Only difference I can see is that The Congressmen in 1937 were smart enough to recognize the fraud and transparency for what it was and to fiercely repel such an invasion; while Today's Congress is, collectively, dumber than a box of rocks for not protecting their own turf and this Country against the Obamanoid, modern day Leninist.
The wimpy House, under Boehner, couldn't fight it's way out of a wet paper bag…What a pathetic lot THEY are….this is truly taxation without representation.
Good article Coach….and another reminder to all of us that the passage of time and technology does not necessarily benefit many of us.
We citizens are all ready for electronic voting on National referendums while our Neolithic Congressmen continue to fight their stupid tribal wars, cudgel one another publicly , and to demand that we pay attention while they whine, preen, or lecture whenever the opportunities present themselves.
What a bunch of no-talent, egoistic Ice Aged footballers.
Congress deserves whatever is coming from both the Voters and Obama….they've been asleep at the wheel.
The Court-packing plan (as the judicial reorganization bill was called by its opponents) was submitted to Congress by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on February 5, 1937, shortly after his landslide reelection. Although Roosevelt presented his plan as a simple organizational reform, he was clearly motivated by the consistent opposition that New Deal legislation had been encountering in the federal courts, most notably the Supreme Court’s recent invalidation of such laws as the National Industrial Recovery Act, the Railroad Retirement Act, and the Agricultural Adjustment Act. The president proposed that the federal judiciary be expanded by adding one new judge for each sitting justice over the age of seventy ; a total of fifty new judgeships could be created, including a maximum of six on the Supreme Court. The bill also included other measures to streamline judicial action.
The party that lost in the lower court is the petitioner and the party that prevailed is the respondent . All case names before the Court are styled petitioner v. respondent, regardless of which party initiated the lawsuit in the trial court. For example, criminal prosecutions are brought in the name of the state and against an individual, as in State of Arizona v. Ernesto Miranda. If the defendant is convicted, and his conviction then is affirmed on appeal in the state supreme court, when he petitions for cert the name of the case becomes Miranda v. Arizona .