FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1512859102> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1512859102 abstract "The past three years of the Obama Administration inevitably have elicited comparisons between the present day and the era of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal. While frequently illuminating, such comparisons often overlook an important point that many may have forgotten: compared with the major reform initiatives undertaken during President Obama’s tenure, a review of the roll call votes reveals that the measures enacted by the New Deal Congresses enjoyed a remarkable degree of bipartisan support. In addition, the Democrats enjoyed large majorities in the House of Representatives from 1933 forward, and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate after 1934.These dual luxuries of bipartisan support and electoral dominance had two important implications for the durability of New Deal legislation. First, they guaranteed that in the near term there would be no significant movement within Congress to repeal that legislation. Second, they ensured that if the Supreme Court held such legislation unconstitutional, Congress would get a second bite at the apple. In several instances in which the Hughes Court held that a legislative attempt to address a particular problem did not pass constitutional muster, the New Deal Congresses would have, and would take, the opportunity to reformulate the program to achieve the desired end through means consistent with prevailing constitutional doctrine.Neither of these conditions obtains today. Congressional Republicans are committed to substantial modification or outright repeal of the Affordable Care Act, and if the Court were to declare all of portions of that Act unconstitutional, there is virtually no chance that it would be enacted in anything like its current form by the present Congress. Moreover, polling data suggest that popular support for the Act is not nearly as strong as it was for programs challenged before the Court in 1937. Court decisions invalidating either the minimum wage or the Social Security Act would have frustrated both the legislative and the popular will. By contrast, polls show the American people favoring repeal or judicial invalidation of all or part of the Affordable Care Act, and the Act as a whole does not enjoy the support of the present Congress. A Court decision striking down the individual mandate therefore would be flouting neither the current congressional will nor present popular preferences. We should bear such important differences in mind when contemplating the extent to which the 1930s provide an illuminating analogy to our present circumstances." @default.
• W1512859102 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1512859102 creator A5050079418 @default.
• W1512859102 date "2012-02-06" @default.
• W1512859102 modified "2023-09-28" @default.
• W1512859102 title "The Limits of the New Deal Analogy" @default.
• W1512859102 hasPublicationYear "2012" @default.
• W1512859102 type Work @default.
• W1512859102 sameAs 1512859102 @default.
• W1512859102 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W1512859102 crossrefType "posted-content" @default.
• W1512859102 hasAuthorship W1512859102A5050079418 @default.
• W1512859102 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W1512859102 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1512859102 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
• W1512859102 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W1512859102 hasConcept C2776211767 @default.
• W1512859102 hasConcept C2776732289 @default.
• W1512859102 hasConcept C2777351106 @default.
• W1512859102 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W1512859102 hasConcept C2780808987 @default.
• W1512859102 hasConcept C83009810 @default.
• W1512859102 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W1512859102 hasConceptScore W1512859102C162324750 @default.
• W1512859102 hasConceptScore W1512859102C17744445 @default.
• W1512859102 hasConceptScore W1512859102C190253527 @default.
• W1512859102 hasConceptScore W1512859102C199539241 @default.
• W1512859102 hasConceptScore W1512859102C2776211767 @default.
• W1512859102 hasConceptScore W1512859102C2776732289 @default.
• W1512859102 hasConceptScore W1512859102C2777351106 @default.
• W1512859102 hasConceptScore W1512859102C2778272461 @default.
• W1512859102 hasConceptScore W1512859102C2780808987 @default.
• W1512859102 hasConceptScore W1512859102C83009810 @default.
• W1512859102 hasConceptScore W1512859102C94625758 @default.
• W1512859102 hasLocation W15128591021 @default.
• W1512859102 hasOpenAccess W1512859102 @default.
• W1512859102 hasPrimaryLocation W15128591021 @default.
• W1512859102 hasRelatedWork W1504641006 @default.
• W1512859102 hasRelatedWork W1561349117 @default.
• W1512859102 hasRelatedWork W1564370192 @default.
• W1512859102 hasRelatedWork W1567982903 @default.
• W1512859102 hasRelatedWork W1602495950 @default.
• W1512859102 hasRelatedWork W1997227909 @default.
• W1512859102 hasRelatedWork W2006185222 @default.
• W1512859102 hasRelatedWork W2020785274 @default.
• W1512859102 hasRelatedWork W2166995851 @default.
• W1512859102 hasRelatedWork W2274740935 @default.
• W1512859102 hasRelatedWork W2287903385 @default.
• W1512859102 hasRelatedWork W2301574627 @default.
• W1512859102 hasRelatedWork W2311886236 @default.
• W1512859102 hasRelatedWork W2388236255 @default.
• W1512859102 hasRelatedWork W2619090993 @default.
• W1512859102 hasRelatedWork W3121519882 @default.
• W1512859102 hasRelatedWork W3122994260 @default.
• W1512859102 hasRelatedWork W3124847930 @default.
• W1512859102 hasRelatedWork W336781235 @default.
• W1512859102 hasRelatedWork W3124363101 @default.
• W1512859102 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1512859102 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1512859102 magId "1512859102" @default.
• W1512859102 workType "article" @default.