Everyone is entitled to their opinion, especially the President, but was his criticism of the Supreme Court justified? While he does give reasons why, I don’t believe his criticisms were justified. This paper will explain and discuss FDR’s Undelivered Speech on the Gold Clause Cases, as well as his Fireside Chat on his Court Packing Plan, and why his criticism is not justified. The Gold Clause Cases stems from the economic crisis from the 1930’s. “Within the first week of holding office, FDR closed the nation's banks. Congress quickly ratified Roosevelt's action with the Emergency Banking Act. FDR then issued an executive order, requiring everyone to surrender all gold coins, gold bullion, and gold certificates to the government by May 1, 1933 in exchange for their value in U.S. dollars at the rate of $20.67” (The Gold Clause np). FDR felt it was his and Congress’ duty to protect the people of the United States (Gillman 433). Congress also took additional measures by passing a joint…show more content… Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., United States v. Bankers Trust Co., Nortz v. United States, and Perry v. United States. The cases were announced on February 18, 1935, and all in favor of the government's with a 5–4 majority. Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes’ opinion “found the government's power to regulate money a plenary power, and the abrogation of contractual gold clauses was within the reach of congressional authority when such clauses presented a threat to Congress's control of the monetary system” (The Gold Clause np). FDR made a draft for a speech, which was leaked after the court’s decision, if the government lost. In that speech, FDR would have addressed the Supreme Court, claiming their decision, carried through it’s logical, inescapable conclusion would harm the economics of the nation. And as president, it would be his duty to protect the people from the Supreme Court (Gillman
