The Dangers of President Franklin Roosevelt’s Court Packing Scheme

President Roosevelt

President Roosevelt grew increasingly frustrated throughout the 1930’s as the Supreme Court declared many of Roosevelt’s New Deal programs unconstitutional. Indeed four of the justices on the Supreme Court were such a hindrance to Roosevelt that they became known as the “four horsemen of the apocalypse” due to them striking down many of the Roosevelt’s New Deal laws.

Roosevelt and his many New Deal programs

Roosevelt’s solution in 1937 to the problem with the Supreme Court was to stack the court with more justices, effectively nullifying any dissent from the “four horsemen” and to require that justices over the age of 70 retire. Conveniently the requirement for justices over the age of 70 to retire would have forced some of the “four horsemen” to retire.

The plan eventually failed to gain support due to many seeing Roosevelt as trying to exert Executive authority over the Judicial Branch. Another reason the court packing plan failed was because the Supreme Court became more moderate on New Deal programs, as seen in West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, which upheld the legality of minimum wage.

Although I find President Franklin Roosevelt to be one of America’s greatest Presidents I find the actions he took in trying to subvert the authority of the Supreme Court to be unsettling. I understand why Roosevelt found it upsetting that the Supreme Court was overturning many of his New Deal programs, but what he tried to do was still wrong. I find it greatly disturbing that Roosevelt would undermine the system of checks and balances in order to get his way. If Roosevelt succeeded in his court-packing plan the results would have been catastrophic. If Roosevelt succeeded the court could have been rendered impotent due to the Executive branch exerting control over the Judicial branch. Furthermore it would have set a precedent where a President could dismantle the Judicial branch if they disagreed with the courts. This could have had profound implications for the Civil Rights movement if leaders could simply choose to undermine the authority of the courts.

One of the core tenants of the American government is the system of checks and balances, where each branch provides a check on the other in order to prevent a totalitarian government from taking shape. By trying to subvert the system of checks and balances Roosevelt was undermining one of the core tenants of American democracy. 

The Importance of Near v. Minnesota

The importance of the press

The 1931 Supreme Court case of Near v. Minnesota was one of the first major Supreme Court cases dealing with censorship of the Press. The case centered on the actions of Jay Near and a Minnesota state law prohibiting a newspaper from making malicious and untrue statements. 

An example of Near's paper and the charges it brought forth

Jay Near was the owner of a Minnesota newspaper, The Saturday Press, which he used to make anti-Semitic and racist remarks. Near accused the police chief of Minneapolis, along with the Mayor of Minneapolis and other prominent citizens and government officials of corruption. Along with corruption charges Near wrote on how Jewish gangs were running amok unchallenged in Minneapolis and how the Jews had most of the power in Minnesota. Near was eventually challenged by local officials under Minnesota state law and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that Near’s rights were violated under the Due Process clause of the 14^th Amendment which prohibits states from restricting essential rights.

I find the case of Near v. Minnesota to be one of the more important Supreme Court cases in American history. As vile and racist as the actions of Near were I still believe that he should have been allowed to publish what he wanted. The Minnesota state law was far too broad to be acceptable and the potential for abuse was staggering since lawmakers could ban newspapers if they found content in it that was objectionable. By repealing the Minnesota state law the Supreme Court struck a major blow against censorship and helped to ensure the continued survival of the Press. After all, if leaders found content objectionable in newspapers they could have them shut down by claiming that they ran untrue or malicious stories. 

The People’s Party and the Electoral College

The People’s Party, also known as the Populist Party, of the late 19^th Century had a great many ideas on the future of America, some of which were later adopted by the American government. One of the more interesting goals of the People’s Party was the abolishment of the electoral college. When the People’s Party announced their platform in 1896, one of the goals was for the “Direct election of (the) President and Senators by the People.” The stated goal of the People’s Party was that: “we demand the election of President, Vice-President, and United States Senators by a direct vote of the people…” The election of Senators by the people of the state they belong to was ratified as the 17^th Amendment in 1913. Before 1913 it was legal for state legislatures to choose their state’s senator and not the people. The choosing of U.S. Senators by popular vote was one of the successes the People’s Party had in their goals.

However, the goal of the People’s Party to abolish the Electoral College failed. As it is the popular vote does not decide Presidential Elections. Instead the people’s vote is tallied according to the state they reside in and a state chooses a certain number of electors to vote for the President based on the number of senators and representatives each state has. Some states such as Delaware choose to split their electors based on how each side faired in their election, but for the most the Electoral College is a winner-take-all system. This means that if the Presidential candidate has a majority of the vote in a state, they get all of the state’s electors, effectively nullifying the viability of the minority vote in each state.

Gore won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote

One of the most recent examples of the Electoral College’s problems was the 2000 Presidential Election in which candidate Al Gore won the popular vote but lost to George W. Bush in terms of the Electoral College.

The Electoral College Map for the 2000 Presidential Election.

I personally believe that the Electoral College should be abolished. The Electoral College was originally set up by the Founding Fathers in order to take power away from the people, since they viewed them as untrustworthy. The Electoral College is itself undemocratic in my eyes. This is mainly due to the fact that a candidate can win more popular votes than an opposing candidate; yet still lose the election.

Another problem of the Electoral College is the fact that it nullifies the validity of the minority vote in a state, since most states use a winner-take-all rule for electors. In traditionally conservative or liberal states voters find it discouraging to vote for a presidential candidate when they know their vote will essentially be useless thanks to the winner-take-all system. If the Electoral College was repealed and a popular vote instituted it would encourage voters in traditionally democratic or republican states to vote for their preferred candidate, without the sense that their vote did not matter. 

The Electoral College is an archaic, outmoded method of electing the President of the United States and is undemocratic at its core, taking away power from the people and placing it in the hands of a few select electors. 

For more reading on the problems of the Electoral College this site and this site have interesting information.

The Wisdom and Courage of Justice Harlan

The Supreme Court of 1896

The 1896 Supreme Court Case Plessy v. Ferguson proved to be a monumental blunder for the Supreme Court on the level of the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sanford case. The black eye given by the case persists till this day and the Justices associated with the case have been widely repudiated by legal scholars, save one Justice who dissented in the case.

Justice Harlan

The Case of Plessy v. Ferguson involved a Louisianan man of mixed racial heritage who boarded a train designated as useable only by whites. It was against the law in Louisiana at the time to disobey the segregation that took place on transportation and all other manner of life. The man, Plessy, was arrested but challenged the constitutionality of the segregation put in place in Louisiana. The Supreme Court ruled against Plessy in a 7-1 decision in which the court stated that the segregated facilities were “separate but equal.” Many of the Justices cited the autonomy of the state to decide these laws as a reason for deciding against Plessy.

The Effects of the Plessy case

The one Justice who dissented in the case was Justice Harlan. It should be made clear that Justice Harlan was no huge promoter of the equality of races, saying in his dissent, “The white race deems itself to be the dominant race in this country. And so it is, in prestige, in achievements, in education, in wealth and in power.” This statement shows that Justice Harlan himself held some views that would today be considered racist. However his decision to dissent in the case showed that he was remarkably progressive for his time in regards to civil rights. Harlan had the foresight to see that the case involving Plessy would later be seen negatively by historians. Many Justices wish to remain favorably in the eyes of historians in order to ensure that their legacy remains unsullied and Harlan accomplished this task. Harlan himself stated that the Plessy case would come to be seen as negatively as the Dred Scott case. Justice Harlan proved to be on the right side of history with his decision and is still honored to this day for it.

Was Andrew Jackson Right to ignore the Supreme Court?

How Andrew Jackson's Opponents Viewed Him

One of the greatest challenges the Supreme Court has ever faced was when Andrew Jackson refused to follow the will of the Court in regards to a case involving Native Americans in Georgia. The Supreme Court took up the case that challenged President Jackson forcing the Native Americans out of Georgia and ruled in their favor. After the Supreme Court ruled on the case Jackson still defied it, knowing that the Supreme Court did not have the military power to enforce their decisions. Jackson forced the Cherokee Indians out of Georgia and into Oklahoma, leading to the devastating Trail of Tears in which thousands of Native Americans died.

The Trail of Tears

Disregarding historical presentism, the act of viewing history through a modern lens, it is not hard to realize why Jackson forced the Native Americans out of Georgia. As America began to expand it was important to find a way to get rid of the Indian population in frontier territories. The Native American populace posed a threat to frontier settlers, even if imagined, and their presence got in the way of creating new settlements. As a veteran Indian fighter Jackson had experiences fighting Native Americans and was therefore more predisposed to decide against them.

A Map of the Trail of Tears

However I believe that Jackson’s decision to force Native Americans out of Georgia was wrong. I do not believe it is wrong because of the way the Native Americans were treated, but because of the potentially dangerous precedent Jackson could have started. By ignoring the Supreme Court, President Jackson brought to the forefront one of the main problems in the Supreme Court’s power structure, the fact that they did not have the military power necessary to enforce their decisions. Jackson’s actions were a case where the Executive boldly trumpeted its superiority over judicial branch, which influenced future Presidents in their relationship with the Supreme Court. It is lucky that the Supreme Court is able enforce its decisions today, even if they do not have the authority to use military enforcement for their rulings.