Turning from the constitutionality of the Code to its interpretation, we consider five statutory cases that divided the Court in the early days after the Code's enactment. The most pervasive theme, evident in the earliest of these cases to reach the Court, is the tension between a narrow interpretation of the Bankruptcy Power and a narrow interpretation of the Code. The cases display the Court's erection and ever more vigorous application of a rule of construction presuming that Congress did not intend to change prior law. Despite more than a decade of congressional effort, this premised on the assumption that economic growth demanded a more vigorous system. Thus, the only one of those cases that upholds a broad bankruptcy power (Bildisco) does so on the premise that the Court should not interpret the Code as making major changes in prior law. Not coincidentally, the lens of history suggests that this has turned out to be by far the most important case – making the system an effective tool for reorganizing large businesses (airlines in particular) that could not practically be resolved outside the courts.

The narrow interpretation of the Code reaches its zenith in Kelly and BFP. Where early cases like Bildisco and Midlantic had balanced bankruptcy interests against other federal statutory regimes, Kelly and BFP presented direct conflicts between clear text implementing the interests of the bankruptcy system and the relatively unanchored interests of the States. The conspicuous undervaluation of the bankruptcy system against uncodified State policies provides an important corollary to Bildisco, Midlantic, and Ron Pair, where the Bankruptcy Code collides with the interests of statutory schemes supported by federal agencies.