OK, the Sherman Act can't win. If the Court blocked trustbusting because of
the old Commerce Clause jurisprudence, the ACt was ineffective. If the Court
authorized the bustup of a trust, it didn't make a difference. In fact,
though, your vague talk about the companies beiong in thesame hands and
acting cooperatively doesn't go to the point.
The Act was mainly intended to promote price competition, at least as it is
now understood. Are you suggesting that the post-breakiup Standard Oil was
involved in systematic illegal pricefixing, that it was not "really" broken
up for competitive market purposes? Then why has the price of oil been so low
in this country? But in fact, real pricefixing is a good way to go directly
to jail, it's just about the only way to get a criminal antitrust action. Ask
Dwayne Andreas, the most recent famous case.
But suppose I give you the pre New Deal Commerce Clause for the sake of
argument. What about the last 60 or so years?
jks:
> This is premodern Commerce Clause jurisprudence. No one talked that way
> after the mid 1930s, and even then the Act had been used to break up
> Standard Oil, no small potatoes.
>Re. 'premodern CC jurisprudence, my comment about Debs & Gompers
specified 'before 1937'...
>Re. Standard Oil breakup, example of ineffectuality of anti-trust
statutes. While dissolution was dramatic, newly formed companies
were in hands of same people. They acted toward each other in
cooperative fashion. Major spinoffs remained - and remain - linked
to one another via Rockefeller banks, respective boards, and joint
exploration, refining, transportation ventures.
None of the below changes the fact that TJ was at best ambivalent about the
Constitution. Personally, I think fairly well of the old document, with a
number of major cavils, notably the Senate with its two guaranteed slots for
every state. At least I think well of it after the 13th,14th, and 15th
Amendments.
Silly Me:
> > 3) Re. Jefferson & constitution, he didn't sign document because he
> > wasn't at 1787 Philly convention, he was in Paris as ambassador to
> > France.
jks:
> While there were things he liked about it, he disagreed with it enough to
> not want to sign it, if my memory serves me well.
TJ's initial protestations (which led him to support second convention)
notwithstanding were less consistent than sometimes suggested. After
he read of amendments (a bill of rights) proposed by Mass. ratifying
convention, he came out firmly in favor, writing to Edward Carrington
(5/27/1788) that 'general adoption is to be prayed for' and expressed
wish for Virginia to be all-important 9th state to ratify.
>>
