Michael Tavoliero: How the Supreme Court paved the way for unchecked expansion of government

By MICHAEL TAVOLIERO

For more than 80 years, the rulings in NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp (1937) and Wickard v. Filburn (1942) have cast a dark shadow over this nation, twisting the meaning of our Constitution and betraying the very foundation of our history and traditions. These decisions tore apart the democratic process, corroding our legal system and eroding the rights of both individuals and states. They paved the way for the unchecked expansion of the federal government, feeding the monstrous bureaucracy we now call “The Swamp.”

The tyranny that followed suffocated any chance for true compromise between the people and their government.

These rulings have chained the Court to a political battle it was never designed to fight, a conflict it will never resolve.

Eight decades later, the Court stands isolated. These decisions claim a right so destructive, so vast, that they have altered the very fabric of human life in ways for which the Court was never designed.

NLRB upheld the constitutionality of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, also known as the Wagner Act, which was a center piece for the FDR New Deal centralization of the control and power by the federal government. NLRB marked a major shift in the federal government’s regulatory power over labor relations and interstate commerce.

The case arose when the National Labor Relations Board accused Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, one of the nation’s largest steel producers, of discriminating against workers involved in union activities. The company argued that the Act, which protected workers’ rights to unionize and bargain collectively, exceeded Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause, since labor relations were a local matter and not subject to federal regulation.

Michael Tavoliero: A Supreme Court decision that amended the U.S. Constitution without ratification by states

Less than 20 years earlier, the US Supreme Court ruled in Hammer v Dagenhart (1918) that local labor conditions did not fall under federal authority, even if they influenced commerce. The Court also relied on the 10th Amendment and states’ rights to regulate local matters like labor. Thus, this decision reflected the Court’s earlier philosophy of limiting federal intervention in local affairs.

Our nation’s jurisprudence up to National Labor Relations Board has been clear as well as supported by both Madison in Federalist No. 42 and Hamilton in Federalist No. 11. The federal government had the authority to regulate interstate commerce, and the states had authority to regulate intrastate commerce. 

At the time of NLRB, the Court adopted a view of federal power which perverted the Commerce Clause, aligning with the New Deal era’s goals of regulating the economy and labor relations on a national scale.

NLRB opened the door to tyranny in the United States. The New Deal Era Supreme Court case fundamentally reshaped American jurisprudence, increased Congress’ power and control over the states and US citizens exponentially and vastly expanded the federal government’s budget simply by the Court’s expansion of its definition of the Commerce Clause. 

This decision was a key moment in expanding the federal government’s ability to regulate economic activity, particularly in areas related to labor and business practices, and played a crucial role in shaping modern labor law in the U.S.

Compared to amending the US Constitution which usually takes a period of several years to accomplish if at all as there are hundreds of amendments introduced regularly, NLRB was argued Feb. 9 through Feb. 11, 1937, and decided April 12, 1937. 

In other words, the U.S. Supreme Court permanently amended Article 1, Section 8, of the United States Constitution in 62 days. 

The FDR Administration, unlike the more traditional efforts of the Wilson Administration, found a way to reshape the U.S. Constitution with astonishing speed and with the influence of just five individuals—the Supreme Court justices. In a matter of years, they achieved what should have required the will of the people and a rigorous amendment process, instead bypassing it with judicial rulings that altered the very foundation of our nation.

What was meant to be a careful and deliberate process, with checks, balances, and broad public consensus, was reduced to the decisions of a handful of people. This quiet yet monumental shift didn’t just undermine the Constitution; it subverted the democratic process itself, stripping away the people’s right to shape their own government. This swift and subtle change has left us grappling with a government that wields powers never intended by the Framers, powers we must now decide whether to accept or reject. 

The question before us is clear: will we reclaim the Constitution, or let it continue to be rewritten by a few?

Then in 1942, the Wickard v Filburn decision drove the nails of tyranny into the heart and the four corners of constitution and buried liberty in a hell some believe not even Charon can access.

Wickard v. Filburn (1942) is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that further expanded the federal government’s power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

The case involved an Ohio farmer, Roscoe Filburn, who grew more wheat than was allowed under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, a law designed to stabilize wheat prices by limiting production. Filburn argued that the wheat he grew in excess was for personal use on his farm and not for sale, so it should not be subject to federal regulation.

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled against Filburn, holding that even wheat grown for personal consumption could be regulated by the federal government if it had a “substantial effect” on interstate commerce. The reasoning was that if many farmers grew excess wheat for personal use, it could affect the overall supply and demand in the national market, indirectly influencing interstate commerce.

This ruling broadened the scope of federal power under the Commerce Clause, allowing Congress to regulate even local, non-commercial activities when it is imagined by federal authorities to have a cumulative impact on interstate commerce. 

These two decisions underscore a troubling reality: government spending and expansion have far outstripped the growth of individual earnings and the prosperity of states, as Washington, D.C. seizes more power and control. This shift marks a dangerous trend of centralizing authority, where the government’s reach takes precedence over the dignity and freedom of American citizens. Instead of respecting the diversity and autonomy of states to shape their own futures, we are witnessing a forced transformation of national norms, with the heavy hand of federal control suffocating the self-determination that once defined our country.

From $4.4 billion in 1937 to an astounding $6.3 trillion in 2024, the U.S. budget has skyrocketed by an unimaginable 142,731%. In stark contrast, the median annual income has risen by just 6,114%, reaching roughly $59,228 in 2024. At first glance, we might chalk this disparity up to inflation, but that explanation falls short. Inflation from 1937 to 2024 has only caused a cumulative price increase of 2,084.31%—nowhere near enough to account for the vast chasm between government growth and individual income.

So, what is truly driving this economic distortion? The answer is clear: it’s our federal government. By inflating its own power and expanding its spending to unsustainable levels, Washington, D.C. has eroded the value of our hard-earned dollars. This unchecked federal bloat is not merely a symptom—it is the cause, choking off prosperity and placing the burden of its reckless growth squarely on the backs of the American people.

The expansion of the Commerce Clause through NLRB and Wickard gave Congress sweeping control over every facet of human life, from conception to the grave. This redefinition didn’t just mark an unprecedented rise in federal power—it unleashed a tyranny that contemporary Americans had never known. It allowed Congress to hand off its legislative authority to sprawling bureaucracies, run by unelected administrators with little accountability to the people.

This shift in power has done more than just reshape government. It has transformed our very way of life, dictating behaviors and norms from a distant capital. And now, as Americans and Alaskans, we stand at a crossroads, facing critical election decisions amidst the distracting noise of those who seek to preserve this system. The time has come to reclaim our voice, our autonomy, and our future.

Michael Tavoliero is a senior writer at Must Read Alaska.

Michael Tavoliero: Why I’m against open primaries and ranked-choice voting for Alaska conservatives