The Effects of the New Deal Reform by F.D.Roosevelt on Modern Political Structure - Assignment Example

The attempt by Franklin D. Roosevelt to “court packing” and the lasting affects it has on today’s political structure. In 1937 President Franklin Roosevelt (FDR) introduced the new deal reforms, which have been described as “the biggest political blunder of his career…. Yet it was… fortuitous, even pivotal, importance for the fate of Social Security” (Zelizer, 2000). Notwithstanding the socio-political ramifications of the New Deal proposals in redefining American Governmental policy towards distributive social welfare, the resulting court packing proposals were constitutionally significant for highlighting the political constraints within which the executive operated. The implementation of the Social Security Act in 1935 was particularly symbolic of the constitutional conflict between government and the judiciary (Alter, 2006). Whilst the Social Security Act had been passed by Congress, the Supreme Court had yet to rule on its validity. These proposals were un-chartered waters for federal authority and it was inevitable that it would be challenged in the courts and until the Supreme Court ruled, the status of the New Deal reforms was ambiguous (Dubofsky, 1992). The eventual striking down of the New Deal reforms raised issues pertaining to the minority control of power held by the Supreme Court (Garraty, 1973). FDR’s desire to gain momentum with what he perceived as necessary measures to help America out of its post-Depression after effects was the driving force behind the court packing measures (Garraty, 1973). Whilst the court packing measures ultimately failed to gain significant ground, it has been argued that the lasting legacy of FDR’s court packing plans was to create a constitutional shift, which in turn redefined the political structure of American government (Manza, 2000). The focus of this analysis is to evaluate FDR’s court packing plans in context of the New Deal reforms and critically consider the lasting impact of the plans on today’s political structure. Firstly, it is important to highlight that the controversy surrounding the New Deal was fundamental in reshaping and redefining the constitutional role of the Supreme Court in American government (Malamud, 2003). The initial role accorded to the Supreme Court under the Constitution is set out in Article III, section 2 of the Constitution. Article III on a strict interpretation arguably grants narrow original jurisdiction, with cases involving more than one State and cases involving the individual vis-à-vis the Federal government solely being within its remit (Alter, 2006). Conversely, the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court includes all other cases with the right to reject appeals (Niskanen, 1996). The exact parameters of the Supreme Court’s powers are ambiguous as the Constitution had to be wide enough to gain State by State ratification (Leuchtenburg, 1995)). However, whilst section 25 of the Judiciary Act 1801 expressly provided that the Supreme Court was able to reverse or affirm decisions made by the State courts if the decisions had been against claims made on the basis of the Federal Constitution; uncertainty has remained with regard to the role of the Supreme Court in American Government (Leuchtenburg, 1995). One of the most significant cases in the development of the power and role of the Supreme Court within the political framework was the decision in Marbury v Madison (1803). This case was brought by William Marbury, who had been appointed as Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia under the Adams administration. However, Adams passed away and Marbury’s sealed commission was never delivered. As a result, the Jefferson administration refused to deliver it. Marbury sought a writ from the Supreme Court to force delivery of the commission. Chief Justice Marshall, whilst sympathetic to the merits of the case, held that matter was nevertheless outside the Supreme Court’s legislative jurisdiction to order a writ of mandamus, notwithstanding the fact that the writ was illegally withheld. An initial observation of the decision indicates that the Supreme Court appears to strictly avoid addressing any powers not specifically stated in the Constitution (Eliot, 1992). However, it is evident that the Judiciary Act 1801 did in fact permit the issuing of a writ. Accordingly, the refusal to do so highlighted that the Supreme Court’s power to review and reject Federal legislation was limited to whether the legislation was in contravention of the Constitution. However, the Court was reluctant to utilise this in practice, in an attempt to maintain independence of the legislature and government. Nevertheless, the power of the Marshall court effectively enabled the Supreme Court to utilise the Constitution to act as an effective opponent of the Government as a check on unconstitutional conduct (Eliot, 1992). However, the lengthy interim between the case of Marbury and Dred Scott v Sandford in 1857, (where the power of mandamus was utilised against the government) highlights the inherent weakness of this power and the unwillingness of the Supreme Court to undermine Congress. However, the New Deal represented a significant shift in political and domestic policy in the US with lasting changes being increased by Federal government control over the economy and money supply, intervention to control prices and agricultural production (Badger, 2002). The New Deal reforms effectively sowed the seeds of complex social programs, welfare and trade unions in the US. However, the impact of the New Deal reforms remains a source of contentious debate between economists and historians (Alter, 2006). The after effects of the Depression was a major driver behind Roosevelt’s New Deal reforms, as unemployment had risen to 25% and manufacturing output had depleted by a third (Bernstein, 1970). Upon election in 1932, President Franklin Roosevelt heralded a “new deal for the American people” (Quoted in Leuchtenburg, 1995). Arguably the most important program of New Deal reforms was in 1935 with the Social Security Act, which established a system of universal retirement pensions, unemployment insurance and welfare benefits for poor families and the disabled (Blunberg, 1977). It effectively established the framework for the US Welfare system (Chafe, 2003). Roosevelt insisted it should be funded by payroll taxes rather than the general fund claiming that “we put those payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors, a legal, moral and political right to collect their pensions and unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program” (quoted in Schlesinger, 1988 pp.308-309). Eventually, following moves by lower courts overturning the major parts of the New Deal program, with arguably the most serious threat coming from rulings invalidating the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA), which used the same broad power to levy taxes for general welfare as a basis for its program of agricultural price supports and controls (Dubofsky, 1992). The Supreme Court followed in January 1936, ruling that “a statutory plan to regulate and control agricultural production, is a matter beyond the powers delegated to the federal government” (Niskanen, 1996). Nevertheless, the Supreme Court asserted that “the power of congress to authorise expenditure of public monies for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution” (Niskanen, 1996, at A19). The ruling on the AAA struck a significant blow to the New Deal and was important for social security in the USA as it signalled the future of the Act (Brock, 1988). The AAA had been an attempt to rescue farmers from the collapse of the agricultural industry following the Depression (Alter, 2006). The central aim was to regulate agricultural production within strict controls to stabilize prices and thereby facilitate profitable growth in the farming industry. The central control mechanism was to be achieved by levying a tax on the processing of foodstuffs and to use the proceeds from this tax to fund agricultural subsidies- in effect using the subsidies as “incentives” to control production (Sitkoff, 1984). In anticipation of how the courts would perceive this new function of government, the draftsmen of the AAA deliberately implemented the tax and subsidy provisions in separate titles of the act, to highlight the lack of connection (Sitfoff, 1984). The main intention was to highlight the overriding purpose of the AAA as a tool to raise revenue and not to control production (Zelizer, 2000). With regard to the Social Security Act 1935, it was designed at public policy level to be a contributory social insurance program, in which contributions were made by workers to what was named the “old age reserve account”, with the purpose that this account would be the primary source of monies to fund the worker’s retirement (Alter, 2006). Indeed, actuarial studies were undertaken to determine the contribution rate needed to ensure sufficient funds in the account (Alter, 2006). President Roosevelt was vehemently opposed to any attempt to introduce general revenue funding into the program by asserting “we put those payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program” (Schlesinger, pp.308-309). In proposing the New Deal, Roosevelt went further and set out to consolidate authority within the government system, provoking strong opposition and protests (Szalay, 2000). He beseeched congress to increase the number of justices in the Supreme Court to enable him to appoint members who would support his ideas (Szalay, 2000). The central issue in contention was the constitutional basis for the Act. The reserve clause of the constitution in the 10th Amendment to the Constitution states that powers not specifically granted to the Federal government are reserved for the States or the people. When the federal government seeks to expand political influence in new areas, it must rely on a provision in the constitution as justification (Leuchtenburg, 1995). The Supreme Court structure of the 1930s was referred to by Roosevelt as “those nine old men”(Leuchtenberg, 1995). The New Deal split the Supreme Court in political terms and in the spring of 1935, the conservative side of the Court invalidated the Railroad Retirement Act. In May, the Court further threw out the National Industrial Recovery Act. Moreover, in January 1936, a split court ruled that the Agricultural Adjustment Act was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court under Hughes in the New Deal era upheld the orthodox doctrine of judicial review and was keen to utilise these powers in declaring various social security reforms unconstitutional (Alter, 2006). Firstly, in overturning the Industrial Recovery Act as unconstitutional, Chief Justice Hughes highlighted the fact that the Act went beyond Congressional legislate in matters of inter-state commerce. Justices Stone and Cardozo rejected the Act on grounds that it involved unconstitutional delegation of power by Congress to the President (Zelizer, 2000). The opinion of Justice Sutherland in the case of Carter v Carter Coal Company (1936) made the position clear in asserting the need to maintain the “fixed balance” of the Constitution, which in his opinion meant ensuring that only direct effects of inter-state commerce were open to Congressional interference (Alter, 2006). This decision directly resulted in the striking down of the Bituminous Coal Act, but had far reaching implications for future legislation and the Supreme Government’s role in politically motivated legislative measures. In declaring this Act as “broad regulation of industry within the State”, this was argued to render legislation unconstitutional and effectively made further New Deal legislation impossible. The rejection and undermining of the New Deal legislation highlighted the primary role of the Supreme Court as opposition to other branches of government (Leutchenburg, 1995). Whereas the executive and legislature were unanimous in the desire that action had to be taken to rejuvenate national economy, the Supreme Court was able to veto this. Arguably, herein lies a fundamental flaw of the American system of government, in promoting the nine justices to such a powerful position of effective veto, the Constitution is rooted in a flawed assumption extrapolated by McCloskey that they are a “group of men who somehow stopped being men when they put on their robes and would not dream of letting their subjective value judgements affect their understanding of the Constitution” (2000). Moreover, McCloskey further highlights that no such group of men exist and that the New Deal era demonstrate how personal preferences clearly shaped the decision making process (McCloskey, 2000). Roosevelt was clearly aware of this and this influenced his court packing plan in order to swing the pendulum back in favour of a balance of power in the court system, which directly impacted decisions at executive level under the Constitution (Alter, 2006). As a result, his response was to propose legislation granting the President new powers to add additional judges to all federal courts whenever there were sitting judges aged 70 or older who refused to retired (Schlesinger, 1988). Cloaking his argument in motives to reform a pressured court system, Roosevelt asserted that “A Part of the problem of obtaining a sufficient number of judges to dispose of cases is the capacity of the judges themselves. This brings forward the question of aged or infirm judges….. A lower mental or physical vigor leads men to avoid an examination of complicated and changed conditions. Little by little, new facts become blurred through old glasses fitted as it were, for the needs of another generation; older men, assuming that the scene is the same as it was in the past, cease to explore or inquire into the present or the future” (Quoted in Leuchtenburg, pp133-134). The practical effect of this proposal was constitutionally revolutionary in enabling the President rights to appoint six new Justices to the Supreme Court and 44 judges to lower courts, thus instantly redefining and addressing political imbalances in the Court system dramatically in his favour (Schlesinger, 1988). Whilst the debate on the proposal and the political implications regarding Presidential power effectively undermined Roosevelt’s political reputation, the court system was nevertheless altered and shifted its course, beginning with the Social Security Act cases, thereby sustaining a series of New Deal legislation, producing a “constitutional revolution in the age of Roosevelt” (Leucthenburg, p.158). Despite the intense controversy the court packing plan provoked, and the divided loyalties it created among the President’s supporters, the legislation appeared headed for passage, when the Court itself made a seismic shift, undermining the President’s momentum (Schlesinger, 1988). In March 1937, Justice Roberts changed his allegiance from the conservatives to the liberals, shifting the balance on court from 5-4 against to 5-4 in favour of the new deal legislation. In the March case, Justice Roberts voted to uphold a minimum wage law in Washington State similar to the piece of legislation he had earlier determined to be unconstitutional in New York under the New Deal proposals. Two weeks later he voted to uphold the Social Security Act and this sudden change is referred to as the “switch in time that saved nine”(Leutchenburg, 1995, pp.143-144). The court-packing plan ultimately failed but its impact on the Supreme Court system was important in reshaping the political makeup of the American Government. For example, in 1937 Chief Justice Hughes gave his opinion in West Coast Hotel vs. Parrish (1937) in favour of a minimum wage. The Supreme Court was now defending legislation very similar to that which it had previously struck down as constitutional. Again in April 1937, previous decisions were reversed as the Court upheld the Wagner Labour Relations Act in NLRB v. Jones and Laughlin Steel Corp (1937), thereby begging the question as to whether the Constitution had been altered (Schlesinger, 1988). However, it is arguable that the subjective political motivations of the Justices effectively led to the change and theoretically, judicial review powers can still effectively be utilised to obstruct legislation and other branches of government (Alter, 2006). The New Deal era and court packing plan is a prime example of this, however the change in the Supreme Court psychology after the court packing plan was proposed demonstrates that the courts cannot continually undermine public opinion and policy moves by the Government (Alter. 2006). Despite significant rejection and protests, in one sense the court packing system legacy succeeded. The symbolic success was represented by the famous switching of positions by Justice Owen Roberts in upholding New Deal measures, thereby creating a liberal majority in the case of West Coast Hotel v Parrish. Some academics have gone further and denounced Roosevelt’s reforms as rescuing capitalism and a missed opportunity to nationalise banking, railroads and agricultural industry (Bernstein, 1968). Alternatively, conservative historians argue that the New Deal and threat to the court system facilitated a constitutional shift, which in turn enlarged the powers of the Federal Government through the back door, by building up trade union; which in turn impeded long term economic growth (Bernstein, 1968). Leftist historians however denounce the New Deal as harming those groups in most need of assistance (Conkin, 1967). Paul Conkin further criticises the government for the Agricultural policies and failure to institute progressive tax reform and preferring generosity towards business interests instead (1967). Whether left or right or revolutionary, the New Deal reform however is important in demonstrating the political constraints within which the government operated. Moreover, whilst the Supreme Court acts as a fundamental check on abuses of executive power in law making, the court packing reforms clearly redefined the political outlook of the Supreme Court, which created a seismic shift in the development of American Government in public policy. BIBLIOGRAPHY Alter, Jonathan., The Defining Moment: FDR’S Hundred Days and the Triumph of Hope. (2006). Bernstein, Barton J. The New Deal: The Conservative Achievements of Liberal Reform. In Barton J. Bernstein, ed., Towards a New Past: Dissenting Essays in American History, pp. 263-88 (1968). Conkin, Paul K. The New Deal (1967). Dubofsky, Melvyn., ed. The New Deal: Conflicting Interpretations and Shifting Perspectives (1992). Eliot, Thomas, H., Recollections of the New Deal: When People Mattered, Northeastern University Press. 1992. Garraty, John. A., The New Deal, National Socialism and the Great Depression. American Historical Review, 78 4, (1973) pp.907-44 Leuchtenburg, William, E., The Supreme Court Reborn: The Constitutional Revolution in the Age of Roosevelt. Oxford University Press. 1995 Lopez, Eduard, A., Constitutional Background to the Social Security Act of 1935. Social Security Bulletin, January 1987 Volume 50, No.1 pp 5-11. Manza, Jeff. Political Sociological Models of the US New Deal. Annual Review of Sociology: 2000, 26: 297-322. McCloskey, Robert. The American Supreme Court. 3rd Edition The University of Chicago Press. 2000 Malamud, Deborah. Who They Are- or were: Middle class Welfare in the Early New Deal. University of Pennsylvania Law Review v 151 2003. pp2019 Niskanen, William. Spending Legacy of a 60-year old ruling. Washington Times, Tuesday January 30 1996. Schlesinger, Arthur, M., Jr., The Age of Roosevelt: The Coming of the New Deal, Houghton Mifflin, 1988 American Heritage Library Edition. Pp. 308-309. Sitkoff, Harvard. Ed. Fifty Years Later: The New Deal Evaluated. New York, McGraw Hill 1984. Szalay, Michael. New Deal Modernism: American Literature and the Invention of the Welfare State. 2000 Zelizer, Julian E., The Forgotten Legacy of the New Deal: Fiscal Conservatism and the Roosevelt Administration, 1933-1938 Presidential Studies Quarterly. (2000)Volume 30: Issue 2 pp. 331 Constitutionality of the Social Security Act: Opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States, U.S. Senate Document No. 74, 1937. Read More