Which two laws did the Supreme Court declare to be unconstitutional?

A) the National Recovery Administration

B) the Wagner Act

C) the Agricultural Adjustment Administration

D) the Tennessee Valley Authority

E) the Social Security Act

* * I am not good at being patient ... The answers are A & C

The correct answer ir: A - C

The National Industrial Recovery Act, also known as NIRA for its acronym in English and officially called "Act of June 16, 1933 (" Act of June 16, 1933) was a law of the United States dictated as part of the New Deal, created to fight the Great Depression during the government of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

The questioning of the NIRA caused a loss of popular support for Roosevelt, but the government continued to apply the powers of intervention enshrined there, even though it had been projected that the NIRA would be in force only for a period of two years (until June 1935). However, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a very important sentence on May 27, 1935 in the Schechter Poultry Corp. v. Case. United States, stating that the NIRA as a violation of the US Constitution for violating the principles of separation of powers.

The Agricultural Adjustment Act was a federal law of the United States, which was part of the New Deal program to restore the country's agricultural bonanza during the Great Depression. It was approved by the United States Congress in 1933, in an attempt to reduce the country's production of certain basic necessities, in order to raise prices. It also led to the creation of the Commodity Credit Corporation, to make loans to farmers in addition to acquiring and storing crops for the purpose of maintaining the value of these.

The system had limited success before being declared unconstitutional in 1936.

The correct answers are A and C.

A) National Recovery Administration: On 27 May 1935, in the court case of Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, the Supreme Court held the mandatory codes section of NIRA unconstitutional,[20] because it attempted to regulate commerce that was not interstate in character, and that the codes represented an unacceptable delegation of power from the legislature to the executive. Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote for a unanimous Court in invalidating the industrial "codes of fair competition" which the NIRA enabled the President to issue. The Court held that the codes violated the United States Constitution's separation of powers as an impermissible delegation of legislative power to the executive branch. The Court also held that the NIRA provisions were in excess of congressional power under the Commerce Clause.

The Court distinguished between direct effects on interstate commerce, which Congress could lawfully regulate, and indirect, which were purely matters of state law. Though the raising and sale of poultry was an interstate industry, the Court found that the "stream of interstate commerce" had stopped in this case: Schechter's slaughterhouses bought chickens only from intrastate wholesalers and sold to intrastate buyers. Any interstate effect of Schechter was indirect, and therefore beyond federal reach.

Specifically, the Court invalidated regulations of the poultry industry promulgated under the authority of the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933, including price and wage fixing, as well as requirements regarding a whole shipment of chickens, including unhealthy ones, which has led to the case becoming known as "the sick chicken case." The ruling was one of a series which overturned some New Deal legislation between January 1935 and January 1936, and which ultimately caused Roosevelt to attempt to pack the Court with judges that were in favor of the New Deal.

Subsequent to the decision, the remainder of Title I was extended until April 1, 1936, by joint resolution of Congress (49 Stat. 375), June 14, 1935, and NRA was reorganized by E. O. 7075, June 15, 1935, to facilitate its new role as a promoter of industrial cooperation and to enable it to produce a series of economic studies, which the National Recovery Review Board was already doing. Many of the labor provisions reappeared in the Wagner Act of 1935.

C) Agricultural Adjustment Administration: On January 6, 1936, the Supreme Court decided in United States v. Butler that the act was unconstitutional for levying this tax on the processors only to have it paid back to the farmers. Regulation of agriculture was deemed a state power. As such, the federal government could not force states to adopt the Agricultural Adjustment Act due to lack of jurisdiction. However, the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 remedied these technical issues and the farm program continued.