NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
The appointees that made the majority were not appointed by FDR. Back it up, PC.4. A few examples of freedom slipping away:
a. Nebbia v. New York,291 U.S. 502(1934) A little guy named Leo Nebbia, a shopkeeper, sold two quarts of milk and a five cent loaf of bread for eighteen cents. This, after New York's Milk Control Board had set a price of nine cents a quart for the milk!
" Nebbia argued that price controls were an unconstitutional interference with the freedom of contractincluded within theDue Process Clauseof the14thAmendment.... The US Supreme Court found that government can interfere withfreedom of contract only to serve a valid police purpose of protecting public health, public safety or public morals. In this case, the Court found that milk is essential to good health,..." Nebbia v. New York | The Law School Guys
"He was guilty of giving his customers a good deal, cutting into his own profit margin." Charles Murray, "By The People"
That was 1934.....who was the monarch...er, President?
The Contract Clause appears in the United States Constitution, Article I, section 10, clause 1. It states:
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. Contract Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It doesn't say 'unless the government decides otherwise,' does it.
The majority opinion in Nebbia was held by 4 Hoover appointees and 1 Wilson appointee.
You should read the decision.
Of course, your post has nothing to do with the fact posted: the decision was counter to the United States Constitution.
You should read the Constitution.
The Supreme Court was co-opted, cowed, by the megalomaniac who was President at the time.....
...what was his name again?
FDR had nothing to do with the decision. It was the Hoover court that decided it. And no it does not go against the Constitution.
Now you're sounding more and more like a fool.
A well constructed counterpoint reduces her to namecalling and blubbering. Every time.