opposition to the new deal essay

New Deal Critics

Written by: michael parrish, uc san diego, by the end of this section, you will:.

• Explain how the Great Depression and the New Deal impacted American political, social, and economic life over time

Suggested Sequencing

Use this narrative along with the Court Packing and Constitutional Revolution Narrative and the Huey Long and the American Liberty League, 1934 Primary Source to highlight opposition the New Deal faced.

When he considered the growing chorus of criticism leveled against his administration in 1934 and 1935, President Franklin Roosevelt may have recalled the old adage, “No good deed goes unpunished.” The burst of new legislation rolling through Congress during the “ First 100 Days ” of his presidency had begun to take effect across the nation and lift the clouds of doubt that could not be dispelled simply by his “nothing to fear” inaugural address. The Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve Board had reopened the banks by shelving the weakest ones and reorganizing others. The nation’s commercial banking structure, once on the verge of collapse, had been saved.

The National Recovery Act’s Public Works Administration launched infrastructure projects that put scores of desperate, skilled craft workers back to building bridges, tunnels, and transit networks. The emergency Civil Works Administration, targeted largely at the unskilled and the poorest workers, paid the food and heating bills for many during the harsh winter of 1933-1934. The Civilian Conservation Corps took the young unemployed off the city streets and gave them hot meals, new clothes, and a paycheck in return for clearing firebreaks and planting trees in the country. With the Agricultural Adjustment Act, the federal government paid farmers growing staple crops and livestock to reduce acreage and destroy millions of animals in order to raise prices even though people were going hungry. The Tennessee Valley Authority broke ground for new hydroelectric dams and transmission towers to bring cheap electricity to the most impoverished areas of the Old South.

Public Works Administration worksites like this one, pictured in 1933, provided jobs to skilled laborers who had been hit by the Great Depression.

But amid these hopeful signs that the country had turned a corner from the numbing despair of 1932-1933 could also be found growing doubts about the future.

Twenty percent of the labor force, or 10 million people, remained out of work at the end of 1934 despite the PWA, CWA, and CCC. Harry Hopkins, chief of the CWA, received pessimistic intelligence from one of his most astute observers, who had crisscrossed the country: “I’ve hardly met a single person who seemed confident and cheerful. Relief loads are mounting. They can’t see any improvement . . . Nobody seems to think any more that the thing [the New Deal] is going to work.”

Among those who thought Roosevelt’s programs had failed by the late summer of 1934 was a group of Democratic Party elders who had been displaced by the president’s more youthful advisors. With a platoon of wealthy capitalists, they gathered to form the American Liberty League, a group dedicated to saving America from what they perceived to be a drift toward state socialism and unchecked presidential power. The League’s first chair, Jouett Shouse, a former member of Congress from Kansas and treasury secretary under Woodrow Wilson, called on its members to “defend and uphold the constitution of the United States” and “to teach the necessity of respect for the rights of persons and property . . . and to preserve the ownership and lawful uses of property when acquired.”

The group counted among its leaders John J. Raskob, the former chair of the Democratic Party, who, like Shouse, had been active in the repeal of national Prohibition and was a dedicated supporter of former New York governor Al Smith, himself now a League spokesperson and a bitter critic of the New Deal. The League’s funding, which totaled $1.2 million over its six years of existence, rested in the wallets of its corporate sponsors, especially the Dupont family, which contributed approximately 30% of its total income. Among the half-dozen bankers, businessmen, and industrialists who contributed more than half the League’s bankroll and served on its executive or advisory committee were the likes of Alfred P. Sloan of General Motors, J. Howard Pew of Sun Oil Company, and Sewell Avery of Montgomery Ward.

R. E. Desvernine, Jouett Schouse, and Earl F. Reed (left to right), shown in 1935, led the American Liberty League’s lawyers and reported on the unconstitutionality of New Deal legislation.

The League found little to like about the New Deal. In its pamphlets, monthly bulletins, and press releases, usually printed versions of speeches and radio broadcasts, the organization’s leaders branded the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) “a trend toward Fascist control of agriculture” and argued that the proposed Social Security bill of 1935 would “mark the end of democracy.” The administration’s tax proposals of that same year and the pending National Labor Relations Act inspired equally vehement protests; the latter produced constitutional challenges before the Supreme Court, argued by the organization’s best lawyers.

The League’s alarming messages against the New Deal touched a broad audience concerned about the growth of the federal government. The League boasted a national membership of more than 120,000 on the eve of the 1936 election and counted the formation of 300 local chapters on college and university campuses with 10,000 supporters. When it lost both the 1936 election and the constitutional battles of 1937, however, the League’s chief financial backers and its rank-and-file cadres collapsed.

In retrospect, Roosevelt faced a more formidable challenge on his left flank, from individuals and groups who believed the New Deal had not gone far enough in using the full resources of federal and state governments to cure the problems of unemployment, relief, recovery, and reform. Upton Sinclair, the old muckraking novelist, received 870,000 votes in his losing campaign for the California governorship, run on a program called EPIC (End Poverty in California) that had promised to find work for the unemployed in the state’s idle factories and farms. Minnesota voters returned Floyd Olson to the governor’s office for a third time on a Farmer-Laborite ticket that vowed to establish state control of most productive assets. “I am not a liberal,” Olson boasted. “I am a radical. You might say I’m radical as hell.”

Most troubling of all his opponents, from Roosevelt’s perspective, was the former governor and now U.S. Senator from Louisiana, Huey Long, called “the Kingfish,” who had campaigned for Roosevelt in 1932 but now ridiculed the president. Early in 1934, Long founded his Share Our Wealth Society, which a year later boasted nearly 30,000 local chapters with eight million members. Unlike Sinclair, Olson, and the Socialist leader Norman Thomas, Long scorned state ownership of business, but he called for a massive redistribution of wealth through graduated income taxes and inheritance taxes intended to limit personal earnings to $1.8 million a year.

Senator Huey Long of Louisiana, pictured in the 1930s, challenged Roosevelt’s New Deal plan, saying it did not do enough to improve the status of the poor.

In Long’s plan, the rich would finance a guarantee of a “homestead allowance” of $5,000 for every American family plus an annual income of $2,500, thus realizing what he had promised in his 1935 book Every Man a King . Denouncing Roosevelt as “Prince Franklin,” who lived on an inherited income, the Kingfish boasted that he could defeat the President: “He’s scared of me. I can out promise him, and he knows it.” It is unlikely that Long could have stolen the Democratic Party nomination from Roosevelt in 1936, but one poll showed him with enough popular support as an independent candidate to tip the election to the Republicans. That threat vanished in September 1935 when, in the hallway of Louisiana’s state capitol, an assassin’s bullet ended Long’s life.

A third-party challenge to Roosevelt remained, however, with Gerald L. K. Smith, former Klansman and part-time preacher, taking over control of the Share Our Wealth organization and linking arms with the organizers of the National Union Party, Father Charles E. Coughlin and Dr. Francis Townsend. Like Long, they had been peddling their own cure-all recipes for economic recovery for several years. Coughlin, a 43-year-old Catholic priest from Royal Oak, Michigan, a Detroit suburb, catapulted to national celebrity when CBS gave him a national radio show in 1930. He reached perhaps 35 million listeners on Sunday evenings with The Golden Hour of the Little Flower , a program that combined homilies on the gospel with attacks on the evils of communism and the malignant influence of Wall Street bankers who had brought about the Depression by their devotion to the gold standard.

Coughlin’s solution urged devaluing gold and expanding the money supply by undertaking the unlimited recoinage of silver (like William Jennings Bryan at the turn of the century) to cause inflation. Believing that Roosevelt supported his radical monetary schemes, the priest campaigned for him in 1933 and told his supporters “the New Deal is Christ’s Deal.” By 1934, although Roosevelt and Congress had devalued the dollar by about 25 percent, that was not enough for Coughlin, who announced the formation of his National Union for Social Justice. At the same time, he stridently denounced the New Deal as a conspiracy of communists, Wall Street, and the president’s Jewish advisors. Roosevelt had become “Franklin double-crossing Roosevelt,” the country’s “great betrayer and liar.”

Unlike Coughlin, Francis Townsend did not traffic in anti-Semitism, but by 1935, his simplistic Old-Age Revolving Pension Plan had spread like wildfire from California, through a nationwide network of Townsend clubs that deluged members of Congress with 20 million petitions urging its immediate enactment. Townsend’s plan called for every person older than 60 years to receive a government pension of $200 a month, upon condition that they retire from work and spend the entire sum within 30 days. A 2 percent tax on business transactions would allegedly finance this security net for the elderly and open up new job opportunities for the young. Townsend was surprised when critics pointed out that his proposed payments to the old would consume nearly half the nation’s income.

In 1935-1936, Roosevelt’s second burst of programs – the Social Security Act, the Wagner Act, the Banking Act, and tax reform – had taken the wind out of the sails of his opponents on the right and the left and propelled him to a second term. During the second term, however, Republicans and southern Democrats continued to mount increased opposition to the New Deal. They were emboldened by the unpopularity of Roosevelt’s court-packing plan and a severe recession that fell after only a few years of recovery. In the end, the shift of the administration’s focus from the domestic front to the war largely meant the end of reform.

Review Questions

1. Much of the New Deal legislation passed during 1933 and 1934 focused on

• reforming the economic institutions that contributed to the Great Depression
• providing jobs and relief to those hurt by the Great Depression
• nationalizing major American industries
• moving people from distressed rural areas into cities with more services

2. The Liberty League believed Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal

• needed to be replaced with more socialistic policies
• presented a viable alternative to socialism
• was a threat to American capitalism
• presented the best plan to move the United States out of the Great Depression

3. President Roosevelt’s critics from the left believed

• New Deal policies had gone too far toward socialism
• Roosevelt was unconstitutionally expanding the powers of the presidency
• a massive redistribution of wealth would be upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court
• the federal government was not doing enough to deal with the Great Depression

4. President Roosevelt’s critics from the left included all the following except

• Upton Sinclair
• Francis Townsend
• members of the Liberty League

5. The leadership of the Liberty League during Franklin Roosevelt’s administration came primarily from

• the Republican Party
• the Democratic Party
• the Socialist Party
• the Communist Party

6. The chief financial support for the Liberty League came from

• labor unions
• business and financial elites
• farm organizations

7. The creation of agencies such as the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, and the Civil Works Administration caused controversy primarily because they

• challenged the traditionally understood role of the federal government in the economy
• favored urban areas more than rural areas
• were more popular with Democratic than Republican voters
• drew major support from east of the Mississippi River

8. Dr. Francis Townsend’s plan to deal with one of the problems connected with the Great Depression influenced the development of the

• Wagner/National Labor Relations Act
• Social Security Act
• Agricultural Adjustment Act
• Tennessee Valley Administration

Free Response Questions

• Explain the American Liberty League’s criticism of President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal.
• Identify the major liberal critics of President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and explain their criticism.

AP Practice Questions

“We said that all of our trouble and woe was due to the fact that too few of our people owned too much of our wealth. We said that in our land, with too much to eat, and too much to wear, and too many houses to live in, too many automobiles to be sold, that the only trouble was that the people suffered in the land of abundance because too few controlled the money and the wealth and too many did not have money with which to buy the things they needed for life and comfort. So I said to the people of the United States in my speeches which I delivered in the United States Senate in the early part of 1932 that the only way by which we could restore our people to reasonable life and comfort was to limit the size of the big man’s fortune and guarantee some minimum to the fortune and comfort of the little man’s family.”

Huey P. Long, Radio Speech: Share Our Wealth, March 7, 1935

1. The proposal in this excerpt most closely resembles which earlier idea?

• “Forty acres and a mule” from Radical Reconstruction
• The Gospel of Wealth
• The course of action laid out in the Social Gospel
• Social Darwinism

2. What group would most likely support the provided argument?

• Advocates of laissez-faire policies
• Religious conservatives

3. This excerpt was written in response to

• rising fascism in Europe
• the Progressive Era creation of the Federal Reserve Bank
• an influx of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe
• New Deal policies

Primary Sources

American Liberty League. “The Supreme Court and the New Deal.” Digital Public Library of America . http://dp.la/item/411bf45e1b715b7ed13852eca59bf509

Lawrence, D. “What Liberty League Group Stands For.” September 10, 1934. https://exploreuk.uky.edu/catalog/xt7wwp9t2q46_3_2#page/2/mode/1up

Suggested Resources

Brinkley, Alan. Voice of Protest: Huey Long, Father Coughlin, and the Great Depression . New York: Random House, 1983.

Wolfskill, George. The Revolt of the Conservatives: A History of the American Liberty League, 1934-1940 . Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1962.

Related Content

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

In our resource history is presented through a series of narratives, primary sources, and point-counterpoint debates that invites students to participate in the ongoing conversation about the American experiment.

Opposition & Responses to the New Deal: Roosevelt’s Strategy

Challenges to the new deal: what was the opposition to the new deal and how did roosevelt deal with it.

In the midst of the Great Depression , a bleak era marked by economic downturn and widespread unemployment, President Franklin D. Roosevelt introduced the New Deal. This series of programs, public work projects, financial reforms, and regulations aimed to provide relief, recovery, and reform to a nation in crisis. As with any significant governmental initiative, the New Deal was not without its detractors. From big business leaders to grassroots activists, the opposition came from diverse quarters, each raising concerns about the implications of these sweeping reforms.

The New Deal’s significance in American history cannot be overstated. It transformed the role of the federal government in the lives of its citizens, setting precedents for future social welfare programs and establishing a social safety net. However, understanding its true impact requires not only examining the policies themselves but also diving deep into the challenges it faced. Opposition to the New Deal arose from various ideological, economic, political, and social fronts. Each opposition had its merits and critiques, shaping the course of the New Deal and forcing Roosevelt and his administration to adapt, defend, and sometimes modify their approach.

This essay aims to explore the diverse challenges the New Deal encountered, the nature of its opposition, and the strategies Roosevelt employed to navigate these challenges. By understanding the resistance, we gain a clearer picture of the New Deal’s legacy and the lessons it offers for present-day policy-making.

Economic Opposition

Arguably, the most pronounced opposition to the New Deal came from the economic sector. Business leaders, industrialists, and conservative economists voiced their concerns about what they perceived as unprecedented governmental intrusion into the private sector.

Many business magnates of the era viewed the New Deal with deep suspicion. They believed that the policies, particularly the regulatory measures, were detrimental to the growth and dynamism of American capitalism. The Wagner Act of 1935, which promoted labor rights and facilitated unionization, was especially contentious. Business leaders argued that by bolstering union powers, the Act would escalate labor costs, making American products less competitive and stifling economic growth. The Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which aimed to regulate the stock market and curb speculative practices, was another point of contention. Wall Street tycoons felt that it hampered the free market and deterred investments.

Conservative economists, on the other hand, presented a more theoretical critique. They contended that government intervention in the economy could lead to inefficiencies. Some went as far as to argue that the New Deal policies, particularly those that artificially raised wages and prices, might have prolonged the Great Depression . By setting minimum prices for goods and services and minimum wages for workers, they argued, the government made it difficult for the market to adjust and recover naturally.

An additional economic critique was the concern over fiscal irresponsibility. The spending associated with the New Deal, from public works projects to direct relief, increased the national debt. Fiscal conservatives argued that this debt would be a burden on future generations and might lead to long-term economic instability.

While these economic criticisms were potent, it’s essential to understand the context in which they arose. The Great Depression had shattered the faith many had in the laissez-faire economic system. Roosevelt and his advisors believed that government intervention was necessary to prevent future economic meltdowns and to provide immediate relief to millions of suffering Americans. The tension between these two economic philosophies — laissez-faire capitalism and government intervention — was at the heart of the economic opposition to the New Deal.

Political Opposition

The New Deal did not only face challenges from the business and economic sectors but also encountered significant political opposition. This resistance came from both the right and left political flanks, as well as from within the judicial branch of the government.

A prominent group opposing the New Deal on political grounds was the American Liberty League. Founded in 1934 by conservative Democrats and wealthy businessmen, the League staunchly opposed the New Deal’s expansion of federal government powers. They believed that Roosevelt’s policies undermined individual liberties and encroached upon states’ rights. By sponsoring radio programs, publishing pamphlets, and organizing public events, the American Liberty League became a vocal critic, accusing Roosevelt of leading the country towards socialism or even totalitarianism.

However, perhaps the most formidable political opposition came from the U.S. Supreme Court. Initially, the Court invalidated several key pieces of New Deal legislation. The most notable case was Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States in 1935, where the Court unanimously ruled that the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) was unconstitutional. The Court reasoned that NIRA granted the President an excessive amount of legislative power and interfered with states’ rights. This ruling was a significant blow to Roosevelt’s agenda, signaling the judiciary’s willingness to challenge his expansive view of federal authority.

Populist opposition also arose, with figures like Huey Long, the charismatic Senator from Louisiana. Long’s “Share Our Wealth” program proposed a radical redistribution of wealth, arguing that the New Deal did not go far enough in addressing income inequality. While Long’s plan garnered significant grassroots support, it also underscored the criticism from the left that Roosevelt’s policies were too conservative and failed to bring about substantial systemic change.

Facing this multifaceted political opposition, Roosevelt had to employ a mix of political savvy, compromise, and sometimes confrontation. His attempt to “pack” the Supreme Court in 1937, by increasing the number of justices and thus ensuring a more favorable bench, is a testament to the lengths Roosevelt was willing to go to safeguard his New Deal programs. While this particular plan failed, it highlighted the tensions between the executive and judiciary and the stakes involved in the political battles of the era.

Political opposition to the New Deal was not just a contest of policies but a profound debate over the direction of the nation, the role of the federal government, and the definition of American democracy in the 20th century.

Ideological and Social Challenges

Beyond the realms of economics and politics, the New Deal faced a myriad of ideological and social challenges. These critiques were rooted in deeply held beliefs about the nature of American society, individual rights, and the fundamental principles of governance.

On the ideological front, conservative thinkers asserted that the New Deal was antithetical to the ideals of American individualism. They believed that by promoting government intervention and welfare programs, Roosevelt was eroding the nation’s character of self-reliance and personal responsibility. These critics saw the New Deal as a departure from the country’s founding principles, with its increasing centralization of power and perceived infringement on individual liberties.

Conversely, the far-left felt the New Deal did not go far enough. Socialists and Communists, invigorated by the global movements of the time, argued that Roosevelt’s policies were mere palliatives, failing to address the inherent flaws of capitalism. They believed that only a complete overhaul of the economic system, moving towards a socialist or communist model, could ensure true equality and social justice. Their critiques underscored the New Deal’s balancing act, trying to provide relief without radically transforming American capitalism.

Racial and gender critiques also emerged, spotlighting the New Deal’s shortcomings in addressing systemic inequalities. While programs like the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) and the Works Progress Administration (WPA) provided jobs and support for millions, they often replicated the racial and gender biases prevalent in society. African Americans, for instance, faced discrimination in New Deal projects, receiving lower wages and encountering segregated facilities. Similarly, women were often relegated to lower-paying jobs, reflecting the era’s gender norms. These critiques highlight that, while the New Deal aimed to uplift the masses, it sometimes faltered in its inclusivity.

Roosevelt’s administration did, however, make some efforts to address these concerns. Notably, Eleanor Roosevelt, the First Lady, played a crucial role in advocating for the rights of marginalized groups, pushing for more inclusive policies and spotlighting issues of racial and gender injustice. The “Black Cabinet,” a group of African American advisors, also worked within the administration, striving to ensure that the concerns of the Black community were considered in policy-making.

The ideological and social challenges to the New Deal were not mere academic debates. They shaped the lived experiences of millions, influenced the direction of the programs, and continue to inform discussions on social justice, equity, and the role of government in today’s society.

Roosevelt’s Responses to Challenges

In the face of widespread and multifaceted opposition, President Franklin D. Roosevelt exhibited a remarkable ability to adapt, communicate, and maneuver, ensuring that the New Deal remained a central component of his administration’s response to the Great Depression.

One of Roosevelt’s most effective communication tools was his Fireside Chats. Leveraging the power of radio, he reached directly into American homes, explaining his policies in clear, relatable terms. These chats not only educated the public but also built trust. By addressing concerns head-on and framing the New Deal as a necessary response to unprecedented challenges, Roosevelt garnered public support and countered many of the criticisms from various quarters.

Recognizing the evolving nature of the nation’s problems and in response to critiques, Roosevelt introduced the Second New Deal around 1935. This phase saw more aggressive reforms, such as the Social Security Act, which aimed to provide a safety net for the elderly, the unemployed, and the disabled. The Wagner Act, promoting labor rights, was another cornerstone of this phase. By addressing some of the gaps and criticisms of the initial New Deal programs, Roosevelt showcased his willingness to adapt and refine his approach.

Facing staunch opposition from the Supreme Court, Roosevelt, in a bold move, proposed the Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937. Commonly known as the “court-packing plan,” this proposal aimed to add more justices to the Supreme Court. Though framed as a way to improve the Court’s efficiency, many saw it as a ploy to ensure a favorable bench for New Deal legislation. Despite the plan’s eventual failure, it signaled Roosevelt’s readiness to take decisive action in defense of his policies. In a twist of fate, the Supreme Court soon began upholding several New Deal measures, easing one of the major roadblocks Roosevelt faced.

Beyond these measures, Roosevelt also demonstrated political acumen through his alliances and compromises. He built coalitions with various groups, from urban labor unions to rural farmers, ensuring a broad base of support. Additionally, by occasionally compromising with key political figures and modifying certain policies, he navigated the complex landscape of 1930s American politics, ensuring the New Deal’s continuity.

Roosevelt’s responses to the challenges of the New Deal were a testament to his leadership qualities. Whether through direct communication, adaptability, or political maneuvering, he managed to keep the New Deal afloat, leaving an indelible mark on American policy and governance.

The New Deal, under the leadership of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, marked a transformative period in American history. It reshaped the federal government’s role in the economy, introduced critical reforms, and provided a lifeline to millions during the depths of the Great Depression. Yet, like any ambitious endeavor, it was met with diverse challenges—from economic and political opposition to ideological and social critiques.

Understanding this opposition is crucial, not just to appreciate the nuances of the New Deal but to recognize the complexities of governing a diverse nation. Each challenge, whether rooted in economic theory, political strategy, or social justice, shed light on deeper issues concerning the direction of the nation and the nature of American democracy.

Roosevelt’s ability to navigate these challenges highlighted his adaptability, communication skills, and political savvy. Whether through direct engagement with the public via Fireside Chats, the introduction of the Second New Deal, or political compromises and maneuvers, Roosevelt showcased a masterclass in leadership.

As we reflect on the New Deal and its legacy, it serves as a reminder of the inherent tensions in democratic governance. Balancing immediate needs with long-term implications, managing diverse interests, and steering a nation through crisis require not only strong policies but also visionary leadership. The story of the New Deal and its challenges offers lessons that remain relevant today, as policymakers grapple with contemporary issues in an ever-evolving landscape.

Class Outline and Notes: What was the opposition to the New Deal and how did Roosevelt deal with it?

While the New Deal helped millions of American’s, it was not without challenge. In this lesson we will discuss those challenges and FDR’s reactions.

I. Challenges to the New Deal

A. What were some of the reasons the New Deal was challenged? 1. Created a very powerful president that led Congress, this was a violation of checks and balances. 2. It was a radical departure from Laissez Faire ideals. Created “big government” – bureaucracy . 3. Some acts appeared interfering and at worst unconstitutional. 4. Heavy debt burden – the United States was engaged in deficit spending and this was unhealthy for the economy in the long run.

B. How did the Supreme Court respond to New Deal legislation?

1. Schecter Poultry Corp. Vs The United States (The Sick Chicken Case) a) Schecter Poultry was alleged to have sold unfit chicken to a butcher. Schecter and the butcher are both based in Brooklyn New York. Schecter did no out of state business. Schecter Poultry Co. was charged by the federal government which argued that under the National Industrial Recovery Act Schecter Poultry can be regulated by the federal government which under the NRA set up codes in cooperation with various industries that: (1) set prices ranges. (2) set up minimum wages and maximum hours. (3) abolished child labor (4) recognized the rights of unions to organize

b) Schecter Poultry argued that the NIRA was unconstitutional because the federal government had no right to regulate intrastate trade.

c) The Supreme Court citing Gibbons v Ogden as the precedent reversed the lower courts decision in Schecter and struck down the NIRA as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court thus said reaffirmed the fact that the federal government may not regulate intrastate trade only interstate trade.

d) NIRA replaced with National Labor Relations Act, NLRA, which created the NLRB, set fair work standards and with the Fair Labor Standards Act, passing the first minimum wage per hour, 20 cents, maximum work week, 44 then 40 hours, and banned 16 year olds and younger from factory jobs.

2. United States v Butler

a) Suit is brought in attempt to have the Agricultural Adjustment Act declared unconstitutional. The federal government, which had done little in the 1920s to help farmers, initiated remedial programs with the passage of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 which provided payments to farmers in return for agreements to curtail their acreage or their production of wheat, cotton, rice, tobacco, corn, hogs, and dairy products. Payments were financed from taxes imposed on processors and these taxes were then sent directly to farmers as reimbursement NOT to grow food. Butler, a processor, refused to pay the tax and the Federal government brought suit against him. In his defense Butler claimed that tax may not be used to transfer wealth directly from one person to another. b) The Supreme Court agreed with Butler and struck down the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933. The next year Congress passed the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1934 which taxed processors and then placed the money into the governments general fund. Then farmers were paid out of the general fund not to grow food. The laws had the same effect, its just that the later version was done legally.

D. How did Roosevelt respond to the Courts attack on the New Deal?

1. Introduced Constitutional Amendment to enlarge the size of the court. This is referred to as his “Court packing” scheme. 2. Congress did not pass the amendment. It is regarded as a dark spot on FDR’s record because it represented an attempt to subvert the process and alter the system of checks and balances.