Yes, the Supreme Court struck down the AAA (Agricultural Adjustment Act) and the NIRA (National Industrial Recovery Act) as unconstitutional in separate cases. In 1936, the Court ruled that the AAA violated the Constitution by regulating agricultural production, and in 1935, it declared the NIRA unconstitutional for giving the executive branch excessive power.
The Supreme Court
because it was not approved by the United States Congress
The National Recovery Administration and the Agricultural Adjustment Agency, both part of the New Deal, were accused of being unconstitutional. Small business owners felted disadvantaged by big businesses, who had a part in the drafting of the NRA's codes. Organized labor was upset because they were effectively shut out. In the Supreme Court case Schecter vs. United States, the agency was ruled as unconstitutional. The Agricultural Adjustment Agency was accused of hurting southern tenant farmers (Sharecroppers) in the south. Cotton planters took the federal money, removed the land from production then displaced the sharecroppers. In the case of United States vs. Butler, the court ruled the AAA was unconstitutional as well.
aaa
the Second Agricultural Adjustment Act in 1938. this reestablished the earlier programs but left out the processing taxes (because the first AAA was declared unconstitutional because congress excercised interstate commerce power) (Source: America A Narrative History, Tindall and Shi)
Yes it did. AAA was later ruled unconstitutional.
AA meetings can be admissible in court. If they are court ordered or relevant to an issue or evidence, then it usually is admissible.
President Roosevelt wanted to prevent the Supreme Court from overturning more New Deal legislation.In 1933, the Supreme Court began to declare some of the New Deal measures favored by FDR as unconstitutional. He considered the Court a threat to his economic program, which he believed would pull the US out of the Great Depression by increasing employment and stabilizing prices.He proposed a scheme to save his reforms by packing the Court with additional justices who would support him. A constitutional amendment would take too long so FDR had his Attorney-General draw up a plan where the President would appoint a new justice for every sitting justice who was over the age of 70.5, up to 6 more justices. Congress refused to pass this bill, but the Supreme Court began to take on a new appearance. Justices began to retire and by the time FDR died, 8 of the 9 justices were his appointment.AnswerHe was hoping to appoint justices that would uphold the Constitutionality of some of his more controversial decisions and support his New Deal legislation.However, the citizens of the United States have a very special regard for the sanctity of the Supreme Court, and the scheme failed. Even members of FDR's own party did not back him on this issue; he was seen as dictatorial. In truth, while the Supreme Court could legally be expanded, it could not practically be done without the consent of Congress.For more information, see Related Questions, below.
No. The President who attempted a court-packing plan to protect his New Deal legislation was Franklin D. Roosevelt, in his proposed Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937.For more information on President Roosevelt, court-packing and New Deal legislation, see Related Questions, below.
AAa
The implementation of the AAA (Agricultural Adjustment Administration) was a by-product Of the New Deal era. The AAA's purpose was to enhance the value of the farmers crops and to eliminate excess livestock.