the state court of Minnesota. Soon after, the Association appealed to the Supreme Court because they felt that the moratorium violated the constitutionality of their contract.When the case was handed to the Supreme Court, the Court immediately acknowledged the fact that the mortgage itself was a contract that was to be protected by the Constitution. The Court also concluded that although Minnesota’s moratorium act may have altered the contract somewhat, it did not violate its constitutionality for numerous reasons. Before the Court announced their decision, they found it to be imperative to discuss the matter as to why Minnesota’s legislature enacted the moratorium law. In Chief Justice Hughes’ opinion for the court, he states:While emergency does not create power, emergency may furnish the occasion for the exercise of power…the constitutional question presented in the light of an emergency is whether the power possessed embraces the particular exercise of it in response to particular conditions. Thus, the war power of the Federal Government is not created by the emergency of war, but it is a power given to meet that emergency. (Vol. II: Constitutional Law and Politics, pg. 241)Chief Justice Hughes believed that the words in the Constitution were written to prevent the government, both state and federal, from invading the rights of its citizens, but there comes a time, the Great Depression in this case, when the government must enact laws for the whole of society, even if it means to interfere directly with public and private sectors of the community. After debating the importance of Minnesota’s moratorium act in context with the present situation, the Court concluded that the state legislature properly used its “reserved power of the State to protect the vital interests of the community” and that “the legislation was not for the mere advantage of particular individuals but for the...
