Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States should be deemed as guiding a ruling as liberals pretend Roe v. Wade is. You were right to predicate your era of encroachment as post-FDR.
Thanks for reply.
State sovereignty-ignoring FDR probably didn't like the Supreme Court's state sovereignty-respecting clarification of the already reasonably clear meaning of 10th Amendment (10A) in United States v. Butler, 1936.
"10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]." —United States v. Butler, 1936.
But noting that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention didn't give ordinary citizen voters the specific power to vote for either president or senators, even though Congress blocked FDR from stacking the Court with justices who looked like he did (sarc), he was reelected enough times that he was able to build a state sovereignty-ignoring activist justice majority. (Social Darwinism trumps the 10A power of the people.)
FDR's justices then effectively reversed Court's previous clarification of 10A in Butler by politically nullifying 10A in Wickard v. Filburn (Wickard).
More specifically, using inappropriate words like “concept” and “implicit,” here is what was left of 10A after FDR's state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices got finished with it, this "insight" into 10A arguable being used to justify unconstitutional federal interference in the affairs of the sovereign states since SCOTUS wrongly decided Wickard in Congress's favor imo.
"In discussion and decision, the point of reference, instead of being what was "necessary and proper" to the exercise by Congress of its granted power, was often some concept [???] of sovereignty thought to be implicit [??? emphases added] in the status of statehood. Certain activities such as "production," manufacturing, and "mining" were occasionally said to be within the province of state governments and beyond the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause." —Wickard v. Filburn, 1942.
Regarding FDR's failed attempt to stack the Court, if FDR was so popular, certainly he could have led Congress to petition the states to amend the Constitution for his otherwise unconstitutional New Deal programs imo.
What am I overlooking?