Talk:A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Supreme Court cases High‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Law High‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

[['''== Can some one tell me more about this case please. ==]]

Untitled[edit]

I'm pretty sure Schechter is an example of production (i.e. not interstate commerce) as opposed to distribution (interstate commerce). [See US v. EC Knight] That might be worth including if it can be verified.

Lack of any discussion on the case's details and nuances seem to me to be a serious detriment to overall understanding of this case, especially since the particulars of the charges against the small business owners are so ludicrous on their surface. There is excellent discussion of this elsewhere, including in a book by Amity Shlaes called "The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression" in 2007. Essentially, this is best understood as a case of government powered beaurocrats persecuting the common little guy by starting with a set of ludicrous regulations that make no common sense, except as a means of promoting gross inefficiency as a means of raising employment (as just one example) and then twisting even those regs to a ridiculous level in order to find some way to prosecute these minority small businessmen. (One example is that the "sick chicken" was only found after government investigators bought and then AUTOPSIED 60 chickens until they found one with impacted eggs! Knowing that THIS was the "sick chicken" that was supposedly sold by these small wholesalers is, I think, an enlightening detail. Another is that the "wage and hour" regs that they were accused of ignoring were related to the hours worked by the four brothers themselves!) These details may not be central to the legal questions specifically, such as the issue of whether or not the promulgation of the NIRA regs violated the Commerce clause of the Constitution, but they do serve an important purpose, I think. Namely to point out the law of unintended consequences and how often more government intrusion into our business and personal lives has idiotic results. --74.197.217.150 (talk) 05:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone is always free to expand an article, but there are two issues with your comments. 1) The article is about the Supreme Court's decision, so details outside of what they considered may not be relevant, even if true, or at the very least may need to be properly contextualized so we know why the article includes those facts but we're clear that it wasn't part of the universe the Court considered. 2) We can't use Wikipedia articles to "point out" such things as the viewpoint that government intrusion is a bad thing, per our fundamental policy requiring articles to have a neutral point of view. You could properly summarize notable critical commentary regarding the case, however, so it might be proper to add a paragraph summarizing Shlaes' view of the case (depending on who Shlaes is), as long as the article is not saying Shlaes' characterization is correct. Postdlf (talk) 13:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111002085620/http://www.quimbee.com/cases/706870 to http://quimbee.com/cases/706870

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]