Judge declares Obamacare unconstitutional

[rogue06]

Did Plessy v. Ferguson declare something unconstitutional? I was under the impression it did the opposite.

Okay. Misread the question as has the SCOTUS ever overturn previous decisions (Wikipedia has a long list)

[Sparko]

Okay. Misread the question as has the SCOTUS ever overturn previous decisions (Wikipedia has a long list)

i could be wrong but I am thinking if SCOTUS took the time to find something unconstitutional, they would be pretty careful about making their ruling and it would be pretty hard to overturn it back to the original. They would have to make a pretty glaring error to mess things up that bad.

[Terraceth]

Any examples of SCOTUS declaring something unconstitutional and then reversing that decision later?

West Coast Hotel Co. v Parrish overturned Adkins v. Children's Hospital, which had declared minimum wage laws unconstitutional.

Know v. Lee overturned Hepburn v. Griswold, which had said that the federal government printing paper money was unconstitutional.

United States v. Darby Lumber Co. overturned Hammer v. Dagenhart, which had declared federal child labor laws unconstitutional.

[Sparko]

West Coast Hotel Co. v Parrish overturned Adkins v. Children's Hospital, which had declared minimum wage laws unconstitutional.

Know v. Lee overturned Hepburn v. Griswold, which had said that the federal government printing paper money was unconstitutional.

United States v. Darby Lumber Co. overturned Hammer v. Dagenhart, which had declared federal child labor laws unconstitutional.

United States v. Darby Lumber Co., 312 U.S. 100 (1941),[1] was a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, holding that the U.S. Congress had the power under the Commerce Clause to regulate employment conditions. The unanimous decision of the Court in this case overturned Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251 (1918), limited the application of Carter v. Carter Coal Company, 298 U.S. 238 (1936), and confirmed the underlying legality of minimum wages held in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379
(wiki)


Hammer v Dagenhart was about whether Congress could regulate child labor laws. Justice Day, for the majority, said that Congress does not have the power to regulate commerce of goods that are manufactured by children and that the Keating-Owen Act of 1916 was therefore unconstitutional. (wiki) it did not say child labor was unconstitutional but that congress could not regulate it. The Keating-owing act was what was declared unconstitutional and it was not reinstated later.

US v Darby did a sort of complicated roundabout way say that congress could regulate interstate commerce which would include child labor laws and the minimum wages (west coast hotel) - so yes I see that could be an good example, but basically that was really convoluted and included all three of your "examples" which are tied together.

But I still maintain it is a very rare occurrence but it can happen (as above).

[Terraceth]

United States v. Darby Lumber Co., 312 U.S. 100 (1941),[1] was a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, holding that the U.S. Congress had the power under the Commerce Clause to regulate employment conditions. The unanimous decision of the Court in this case overturned Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251 (1918), limited the application of Carter v. Carter Coal Company, 298 U.S. 238 (1936), and confirmed the underlying legality of minimum wages held in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379
(wiki)


Hammer v Dagenhart was about whether Congress could regulate child labor laws. Justice Day, for the majority, said that Congress does not have the power to regulate commerce of goods that are manufactured by children and that the Keating-Owen Act of 1916 was therefore unconstitutional. (wiki) it did not say child labor was unconstitutional but that congress could not regulate it. The Keating-owing act was what was declared unconstitutional and it was not reinstated later.

US v Darby did a sort of complicated roundabout way say that congress could regulate interstate commerce which would include child labor laws and the minimum wages (west coast hotel) - so yes I see that could be an good example, but basically that was really convoluted and included all three of your "examples" which are tied together.

Kind of sort of. Although Adkins concerned a federal minimum wage law law, that fact was moot in Adkins after it declared minimum wage laws were unconstitutional no matter who enacted them, so there was no need or reason to consider the federal vs. state question. West Coast Hotel was about a state minimum wage law law and thus there was again no need to consider the question of the more specific question of federal minimum wage legislation. So if we're talking about the law overturned in Adkins, it is true that it wasn't until later (Hammer v. Dagenhart) that it was confirmed the federal government, like state governments, could set minimum wage laws. But in terms of overturning a previous decision, West Coast Hotel was essentially a complete overturn of what Adkins decided, which is that minimum wage laws were unconstitutional--period.

I'm a little confused, though, by your statement of "it did not say child labor was unconstitutional but that congress could not regulate it." Was this a clarification of what you were saying or a statement of correction? If it's the latter, I never said child labor was declared unconstitutional, I said that "federal child labor laws" (i.e. federal laws restricting or prohibiting child labor) were declared unconstitutional in a decision that was later reversed.

[Sparko]

Kind of sort of. Although Adkins concerned a federal minimum wage law law, that fact was moot in Adkins after it declared minimum wage laws were unconstitutional no matter who enacted them, so there was no need or reason to consider the federal vs. state question. West Coast Hotel was about a state minimum wage law law and thus there was again no need to consider the question of the more specific question of federal minimum wage legislation. So if we're talking about the law overturned in Adkins, it is true that it wasn't until later (Hammer v. Dagenhart) that it was confirmed the federal government, like state governments, could set minimum wage laws. But in terms of overturning a previous decision, West Coast Hotel was essentially a complete overturn of what Adkins decided, which is that minimum wage laws were unconstitutional--period.

I'm a little confused, though, by your statement of "it did not say child labor was unconstitutional but that congress could not regulate it." Was this a clarification of what you were saying or a statement of correction? If it's the latter, I never said child labor was declared unconstitutional, I said that "federal child labor laws" (i.e. federal laws restricting or prohibiting child labor) were declared unconstitutional in a decision that was later reversed.

ok.

Yeah that whole situation seems really complex and convoluted. I will admit it sounds like a good example of what I was asking for though. Scotus declaring something unconstitutional and then later saying it was constitutional. Still doesn't sound like an easy thing to do or very common though. But then this decision wasn't even by SCOTUS was it? Just a federal judge. so who knows?