![]() Slaughter-House Cases / United States v.Here are various runners-up, in approximately chronological order: Thus, Helvering is the central case that flipped the system from limiting the government to what is explicitly allowed to permitting anything that isn't explicitly banned - effectively ending federalism. If I had to make a rough estimate, I'd say about 75% or more of the spending currently done by the federal government relies on this holding in Helvering, making the overwhelming majority of what the federal government does unconstitutional. Since Helvering, Congress can spend money on anything it wants, facilitating the welfare state and the immense growth of the federal government in the last 80 years. This ruling completely upended the system of enumerated powers, in which Congress only had the powers delegated to it by the Constitution, and eviscerated the Tenth Amendment that restricted the federal government to its defined roles. Helvering upheld the constitutionality of Social Security on the basis that Congress has a general power to spend on whatever it deems to be in the general welfare. Using the second and third prongs, I think the case that wins the “honor” for the worst active Supreme Court decision in American history is Helvering v. I may be wrong about that for Buck and Korematsu - I hope not - but I am making the assumption that they're not good law anymore. Buck and Korematsu may not be technically be overruled, but I think the reason is just that a similar case hasn't provided the opportunity. United States (upholding Japanese internment camps).ĭred Scott and Plessy have been clearly overruled. Bell (permitting compulsory sterilization), and Korematsu v. Ferguson (allowing separate-but-equal), Buck v. ![]() Under the first prong, I will exclude from consideration a number of infamously horrific decisions: Dred Scott (ruling black people aren't citizens), Plessy v. Third, the case either A) has egregious consequences for individual liberty or B) is clearly ideological- or policy-driven rubbish as a matter of constitutional law (whether or not I happen to like the consequences).Second, the holding of the case is inconsistent with the Constitution.First, the holding of the case is unambiguously still guiding precedent.The standard I'm using for “worst” is three-fold: ![]() I’ve been thinking about this a lot recently, and here are my nominees for the worst SCOTUS opinions to date. What makes a Supreme Court decision bad? And what are the worst precedents handed down by our highest court? ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |