Congressional opponents framed pure-food regulation as an unconstitutional federal police power

Evidence

All four objected to the bill on constitutional gounds. Bailey insisted that the bill was “purely and only an exercise of the police power, and therefore not within the power of the federal government.” — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process, 1027

Categorization

• XREF: Feeds the law-course doctrinal thread on federalism and the police power vs. interstate commerce — connects to the McCumber original-package argument below and to Wechsler’s political-safeguards framing. — connects to: Interstate commerce defeated state-by-state pure food regulation, pushing federal law — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 987; Opponents mocked federal food standards as sumptuary regulation by ignorant experts — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 1030; Laws criminalizing conduct shielded by fundamental rights are unconstitutional — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1403

Broader Connections

• Laws criminalizing conduct shielded by fundamental rights are unconstitutional #exemplifies (0.85) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1403