That was the court's initial response, that the New Deal programs took too much liberty with the Commerce Clause and had to be struck down. Roosevelt responded to the rebuff: “[The commerce clause was written] in the horse-and-buggy age ... since that time … we have developed an entirely different philosophy."
Which I suppose is the philosophy which now looks at the constitution as a Living Document -- the text may be mostly ignored if one interprets with a liberal spirit. I would take you reject this philosophy.>>8398>from "no brainers" to "holy f*&k what have you morons been smoking".
The book I'm working on now, which I take to be a mostly objective text, does say many of the programs were created in haste. While I think the divide in people's attitude involves more the motivation of government to help in New Deal ways, mostly how people come down in capitalism/socalism and big government/small. If someone favors the 'why' then it seems there's still much feedback on the 'how' of New Deal policies.>People were starving in the U.S., yet policies kept prices from dropping to where they could afford to feed themselves. Terrible.
Yeah, that Grapes of Wrath stuff is such a weird thing. I still don't quite get why a surplus can't mean Grapes for everyone.>banking system
While many might deny this role of the government, ensuring deposits and smoothing the reopening of banks succeeded, I think.>>8400>it is illegal for an employer to fire an employee for trying to organize a union.
Well, everyone's job is basically making the corporate powers happy, and when they express a desire, one is paid to comply. So I expect they would word it in documentation something else -- "inappropriate behavior", "not adhering to our core values" -- and not mention the word union.