The whole question would have been very simple if only the Supreme Court had looked upon the Constitution with dimmer glasses and allowed }its" rigid ines to become blurred, They "could have reconciled their conscience by looking at the little note to the Constitution Inga constitution in. order among other things "to promote the general welfare."
Laws. regulating hours and wages obviously promote general welfare Dut the Supreme Court, or at least majority" of. its members, look rigidly at the Constitution itscit and find that while Congress can levy {axes to provide for the general welfare and can regulate commerce among the several states, nothing is said about its power to regulate industrial activities within the several slates. And in the Tenth Amendment provided that If no. powers are stated to belong to the Federal Govment they must be assumed to be reserved to the states respectively oF to the peopl 'The rejection of social by the Court has led to the accusation that they are unprogressive, that the majority who insist upon a' rigid Interpretation are conservative and reactionary as opposed 10 those who believe in stretching its terms a tittle re described as Liberal. If "general welfare" and "regulate commerce" fare Interpreted broadly enough then Practically any piece of social or industrial legislation passed by Con-ress could be accepted. If they are not interpreted broadly than the power of the Federal Government is. shackled and social legislation is impossible. The States could pass it, but they do not, and the Federal Government cannot.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.