Schecter+Poultry+v.+United+States

__**The case of Schecter Poultry versus the United States**__

DATE??? 0/1

NO PICTURE 0/2

During the Great Depression Era, THE NIRA, or the National Industry Recovery Act, an organization set up by Congress, came into conflict with Schecter Poultry, a company selling chickens to New York City and the surrounding area.

__**The NIRA and NRA**__ __**Schecter Poultry**__ Schecter Poultry was owned and managed by Joseph, Martin, Alex, and Aaron Schechter. The company bought chickens at markets and railroad terminals, and some outside the state. They would then sell the chickens to retailers in New York City and nearby environs. In July 1934, the Schecters were arrested for 60 violations of the Live Poultry Code, selling unfit chickens, and neglecting to adhere to minimum wage and maximum hours policies.

__**The Arguments of the Cases**__ At the earliest case, the courts convicted Schecter of 18 violations and 2 conspiracies to violate it. While it was confirmed by another court, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. During the case, Schecter challenged the NIRA, saying it was an unconstitutional abdication of the power vested in Congress by Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution. They also argued that their company worked strictly within the state of New York, and thus was not under the the federal government's power by the Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, and that the process for enforcing the NIRA violated the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment.

CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION 5/5

The U.S. stated that the Live Poultry Code was needed for the public benefit, ensuring the free flow of chickens in interstate commerce. It kept chicken prices lower and helped to lower the financial burden, however much, on the public. They also argued that it was within the power of Congress to enact the NIRA which enforced the Live Poultry Act because such codes only applied to business involved in interstate commerce.

SUMMARY 5/5

RULING 4/5

__**Attacking the Code**__ The Supreme Court unanimously agreed that it was not within the federal governments power to regulate intrastate commerce, as stated by the 10th Amendment. They went on to state that the Live Poultry Code regulated intrastate commerce and thus was unconstitutional.

__**The New Deal Crashes and the Court Packing Plan**__ Other cases with similar results effectively demolished the NIRA, the centerpiece of FDR's New Deal. Less than a week later, he publicly condemned the Court, saying that Court's "horse-and-buggy definition of interstate commerce" was an obstacle for the public economic health. At first, Roosevelt waited to see if the Court would reverse its standing on //Schecter//, refusing to back the suggested amendments and laws to change the Court. After they instead repeatedly struck at the New Deal in cases in 1936, Roosevelt revealed his famously controversial Court Packing Plan. In 1937, the Court began to rule more often in favor of the New Deal. The Court Packing Plan was never passed.

IMPACT 5/5

__**Sources**__ http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/The+sick+chicken+case

YOU SHOULD REALLY USE MORE THAN ONE SOURCE NOT IN APA FORMAT 1/2

21/25 = 84% (C+) YOU GIVE VERY GOOD INFORMATION BUT YOU ARE MISSING A FEW OF THE REQUIREMENTS - SEE COMMENTS ABOVE