Ever since Marshall's masterful maneuver in the Marbury v. Madison case of 1803, the Court has had the power of judicial review, or the power to veto any unconstitutional legislative action, "unconstitutional" being a flexible term. Nowadays, this power is used mainly to preserve social rights, but during the time before and during the Great Depression, it was used to support a free market economy, challenging any legislature that gave any indication of giving the government power to regulate the economy. The most prominent players were, of course, the Four Horsemen, who stood staunchly against any attempt to regulate the economy.
During the 1920s alone, during and right before the Great Depression, the Supreme Court struck down 19 different pieces of legislature that went against their beliefs of free market economy. They outlawed minimum wage, among other laws. They were finally stopped by Roosevelt in 1937 in what was perceived as an obvious power grab.
However, despite the Supreme Court's obvious contribution to the disaster that was the US government's attempts to regulate the economy during the Great Depression, they were trying to preserve what they perceived as right. They tried to save free-market economy, save capitalism and save property. Perhaps their actions were not always, or perhaps even never, beneficial to the people, especially during that time, they did have justifiable motives.
I think it is interesting that you believe that the Supreme Courts motives were justified even if they never benefited the majority of people. While it is always good to stand for what you believe in, I think that the job of the Supreme Court should be to protect the people of the United States. Even though the members of the Supreme Court did not believe in ideas that could have helped Americans, I believe it was their duty to let economic regulation happen if it was for the good of the people.
ReplyDeleteGreat points but maybe your argument would have been made stronger if you'd looked at the specific judges on the court at the time and looked at their personal motives.
ReplyDeleteWasn't it specifically the Four Horsemen who remained opposed to progressivism throughout the Great Depression and even during Franklin Roosevelt's presidency? Although there were one or two judges on the court who had liberal viewpoints, most people were strongly conservative and followed along and agreed on the opinions of the Four Horsemen since they held the most power until they almost got sacked by FDR during his second term. Also, about the Supreme Court helping out the people, I think I read in the Freedom from Fear that one of the reasons why their actions didn't really benefits the people was that they didn't want to lose their power over their power of judicial reviews since it was challenged a few times by power authorities such as the presidents.
ReplyDeleteSource:
Textbook
Freedom from Fear
I agree with Patrick. The Four Horsemen strike me as men who cared about their own personal beliefs ahead of the needs of the people. The Great Depression called for government intervention in the economy, as proven when both the banks and stock market collapsed. FDR knew this, and is why he advocated so persistently for the New Deal and its programs that put the government in a position to stabilize the American economy.
ReplyDeleteI think that the Four Horsemen were trying to preserve a world corrupt where a strong minority oppressed the majority. The Four Horsemen's ideals were swept away in the Great Depression. Unrestricted free enterprise lead to bigger companies. When the market crashed, the large industries toppled. The Depression revealed that the bigger business the harder it falls.
ReplyDelete