Customer Reviews

FDR v. The Constitution: The Court-Packing Fight and the Triumph of Democracy

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

My first reaction when I saw this book was to ask why did we need yet another book on the 1937 court packing episode? After all, there are already outstanding studies by (among others) Leonard Baker, Marian McKenna (the first book I reviewed on Amazon), Robert Shogan, and the grand-daddy of all studies, Alsop and Catledge's "The 168 Days" published in 1938. I was pleased to discover, once I got into the book, that the author, a correspondent for the respected "National Journal" here in Washington, offered a somewhat unique perspective. That is, the author sees this as much more an opportunity for studying the human dynamic (my term) rather than just a political event. Therefore, he paints substantial pictures of some of the key actors who usually get scant attention in other studies: Justice Roberts (a superb analysis); Senator Burton K. Wheeler (who led the opposition to his own president's proposal); Attorney General Homer Cummings; Senator Joe Robinson (who led the pro-plan forces); and "Cactus Jack" aka Vice President John Nance Garner. Moreover, the book is based heavily upon contemporary press accounts and archival research, buttressed by the author's unique interviews of surviving relatives of the key players (such as Wheeler's youngest daughter who provided important information).

The book also offers a classic case study of the FDR methods of persuasion and manipulation. From threats and fireside chats to "harmony meetings," FDR tried every trick in his book to secure a victory which nonetheless eluded him. Since to live in Washington is to be surrounded by history, I especially appreciated the fact that the author identifies by address important locales in his story. Thereby, I learned that Justice Van Devanter (whose resignation severely undermined support for the plan) and Senator Borah both lived in our building, along with Justice Cardozo. In conjunction with the novel aspects of this book, the author has written a first-class solid historical study as well. To be sure there are a very few mistakes: CIO stands for the Congress of Industrial Organizations; the Supreme Court does not hand down "verdicts"; the "priviliges and immunities clause is not part of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. But these are trifles in comparison with the overwhelming contributions of this study. The author has included 42 pages of notes (which document his extraordinary research effort), some impressive photographic illustrations, and a brief bibliography. Our understanding of the court packing episode has taken a big step toward being complete thanks to this fine study.

I just finished rereading Advice and Consent and played the game which others have played of trying to figure out how much was true. Then I picked up FDR and the Constitution and amazingly it was a strickingly similar story, except this one is true. It has Roosevelt, a strong Senator, a crucial death and ambiguity as to what is correct. Actually FDR was better.

The strength of the book are the character studies from Garner to Brandeis, to Wheeler, to Roberts and most impressively Hughes. Also one can not read this without thinking about the importance of chance in history. What if Robinson did not die. What if Roberts did not change his position.

Also the question to think about is how our system works to keep the various branches in tune with the popular views. That thought is most interesting with our court now.

Lastly at least one vote for a living constitution.

This is a very readable book covering a pivotal period in American constitutional history. The period, often referred to as the Constitutional Revolution of 1937, was an important turning point in constitutional law, and this book covers the topic very well. It is well researched and well presented.

For a better perspective on the topic, I recommend reading both FDR v. The Constitution and Supreme Power: Franklin Roosevelt vs. the Supreme Court, which offers even more depth and a different perspective. The different perspectives of the two books provide a more complete picture of the events and people who lived those events.

Finally, if you want to complete the picture read The Forgotten Memoir of John Knox: A Year in the Life of a Supreme Court Clerk in FDR's Washington. This book presents a behind the curtain view of the year 1937 in the chambers of the Court's most cantankerous and dislikable Justice. It offers a very personal view of several other Justices as well.

I bought this book as a suggestion from a Book Club. I was really looking forward to learning more about this famous Court Packing fight. The book reads very well and has an accessible storytelling tone to it. The author excels in bringing a human face to some of the key participants in this fight, particularly Senator Wheeler, Charles Evan Hughes and Owen Roberts.

What drags the book down though is its biased opinion of the Supreme Court's verdicts. A title such as "FDR v. the Constitution" might lead you to believe that this is an anti New Deal book positioning FDR in opposition to the Framers. Make no mistake in that the author is clearly in FDR's camp. For example, when the court begins to side with FDR on a number of decisions, the author states "The court was once again free to side with the people". This statement clearly disregards that some of the Anti New Deal verdicts of the court actually were strong decisions in favor of individual rights. One could argue that the anti New Deal verdicts were more on the side of the people than the pro New Deal verdicts which curtailed constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. To be fair, I wasn't expecting judgement on the court's decisions in this book. My expectations were to understand why the scheme ultimately was defeated. In that respect, the author did succeed by bringing to light several key players and weaving a decent story.

It would have been far superior though had the bias been left out.

Mr. Solomon's book on the court-packing scheme is most enlightening in that it clearly states the switch in the philosophy was due in part to the pressure put on the court by FDR and the heavy mandate that was handed to him in the 1936 landslide. The author contends that FDR's greatest mistake in his court plan was to link the expansion of the court with the age factor which irritated fellow liberals on the court like Louis Brandeis who relayed his displeasure to Senator Burton Wheeler. FDR's use of labor officials to intimidate Sen. Wheeler into voting for the plan did not help either. It is also refreshing that the author stated that FDR tried to use "carrots" of patronage to coast fellow democrats in order to get support.

The author goes through some of the history of the Supreme Court in terms of the political shenanigans that were associated with the court during the terms of Presidents Jefferson, Lincoln and Grant. The author peppered the book with some references to contemporary history like the Fifth All-Star Game in Washington, the Hindenburg disaster at Lakehurst, N.J. and a listing of classic radio shows that were on at the time.

The only thing I disagree with the author about the book was his thesis that the Constitution was a "living document" that changes with the times. Not only was this philosophy implemented in the later New Deal legislation, but also in the "evolving standards of decency" opinions that are associated with the Eighth Amendment regarding cruel and unusual punishment. It begs the question that if the Constitution can change with winds of popular will and "the times," would some sinister legislation be passed years down the road in the name of "general welfare?"

This readable account of the events leading to and constituting FDR's court-packing scheme fails to provide any careful account of the Constitutional issues involved. As a personal history of the individuals involved it's OK, but don't expect a fair presentation of the concerns that led the Supreme Court to strike down the New Deal's various schemes; the author is incapable of or uninterested in stepping back from his jejune bleeding-heart liberalism. He makes no attempt to assess the contradictions inherent in the left's Constitutional preferences. There is the merest gesture at pointing out the quasi-fascist nature of much of the New Deal, but in the book's stupidest moment the author makes a point of mentioning the Supreme Court Police's Sam Browne gun rigs, and ominously informs the reader that Hitler liked the same style. A mediocre book, worth 2 stars for narrative flow.

Solomon's book on the 1937 attempt by President F. D. Roosevelt describes the series of events, backgrounds of the principles, and an analysis of the issues. I found this book valuable in my work on a new model for formulating the concept of federalism and used it to illustrate one of the process frameworks.

FDR v. The Constitution also illustrates the dangers of hubris in a leader. In FDR's case, it made him a better president in time for the greater trials of WW11.

The downside of this book is the assumption that the "living constitution" doctrine is valid.

I wish everone would this so they would know what the constitution
is and how it effects everyday life, the carrying firearms was ok
back when we still used outdoor bathrooms

There is nothing in this book we cannot know from existing accounts. The novelty of Solomon's version lies not in any form of contribution to the literature but on his style--overly detailed and so full of dead weight that one struggles from page to page to discover what point the author was trying to make. The reader walks away unenlightened and broken down by a writing style that stretches what is essentially a wikipedia entry to an overstated and unfortunate waste of shelf space.

There were times in this book that I was not sure if I was reading about 1937 or 2009. The only exception was that the Supreme Court in the 1930s ruled that many of the bills that were passed were unconstitutional.

Was FDR a genius or short sighted in proposing to expand the court? Both?!?

The book was well written and well documented.