upon their reserved rights by the general government.... So
long ... as this Constitution shall endure, this tribunal must
exist with it, deciding in the peaceful forms of judicial
proceeding, the angry and irritating controversies between
sovereignties, which in other countries have been determined
by the arbitrament of force.[12]

It is, therefore, the Taney Court, rather than the Marshall Court, which
elaborated the concept of Dual Federalism. Marshall's federalism is more
aptly termed national federalism; and turning to modern issues, we may
say without exaggeration that the broad general constitutional issue
between the Court and the Franklin D. Roosevelt program in such cases as
Schechter Corp. _v._ United States and Carter _v._ Carter Coal Co.[13]
was, whether Marshall's or Taney's brand of federalism should prevail.
More precisely, the issue in these cases was whether Congress' power to
regulate commerce must stop short of regulating the employer-employee
relationship in industrial production, that having been hitherto
regulated by the States. In Justice Sutherland's words in the Carter
case:

Much stress is put upon the evils which come from the struggle
between employers and employees over the matter of wages,
working conditions, the right of collective bargaining, etc.,
and the resulting strikes, curtailment and irregularity of
production and effect on prices; and it is insisted that
interstate commerce is greatly affected thereby.... The
conclusive answer is that the evils are all local evils over
which the Federal Government has no legislative control. The
relation of employer and employee is a local relation. At
common law, it is one of the domestic relations. The wages are