http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=343&invol=579U.S. Supreme Court
YOUNGSTOWN CO. v. SAWYER, 343 U.S. 579 (1952)
343 U.S. 579
YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. ET AL. v. SAWYER.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. * No. 744.
Argued May 12-13, 1952.
Decided June 2, 1952.
To avert a nation-wide strike of steel workers in April 1952, which he believed would jeopardize national defense, the President issued an Executive Order directing the Secretary of Commerce to seize and operate most of the steel mills.
The Order was not based upon any specific statutory authority but was based generally upon all powers vested in the President by the Constitution and laws of the United States and as President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. The Secretary issued an order seizing the steel mills and directing their presidents to operate them as operating managers for the United States in accordance with his regulations and directions. The president promptly reported these events to Congress; but Congress took no action. It had provided other methods of dealing with such situations and had refused to authorize governmental seizures of property to settle labor disputes. The steel companies sued the Secretary in Federal District Court, praying for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. The District Court issued a preliminary injunction, which the Court of Appeals stayed. Held:
1. Although this case has proceeded no further than the preliminary injunction stage, it is ripe for determination of the constitutional validity of the Executive Order on the record presented. Pp. 584-585. ****
2. The Executive Order was not authorized by the Constitution or laws of the United States; and it cannot stand. Pp. 585-589. (a) There is no statute which expressly or impliedly authorizes the President to take possession of this property as he did here. Pp. 585-586.
(b) In its consideration of the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947, Congress refused to authorize governmental seizures of property as a method of preventing work stoppages and settling labor disputes. P. 586.
(c) Authority of the President to issue such an order in the circumstances of this case cannot be implied from the aggregate of his powers under Article II of the Constitution. Pp. 587-589. (d) The Order cannot properly be sustained as an exercise of the President's military power as commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. P. 587.
(e) Nor can the Order be sustained because of the several provisions of Article II which grant executive power to the President. Pp. 587-589.
(f) The power here sought to be exercised is the lawmaking power, which the Constitution vests in the Congress alone, in both good and bad times. Pp. 587-589. (g) Even if it be true that other Presidents have taken possession of private business enterprises without congressional authority in order to settle labor disputes, Congress has not thereby lost its exclusive constitutional authority to make the laws necessary and proper to carry out all powers vested by the Constitution "in the Government of the United States, or any Department or Officer thereof." Pp. 588-589.
rest of case at linke above.
What does it mean? Here's an excerpt from
http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Youngstown_Sheet_and_Tube_Co._v._Sawyer:The Broader Implications of Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer
The Youngstown case is principally important today because it shows that the President does not have the authority to disregard the law, the Congress and the Courts in the name of national security. Often this proposition is uncontroversial, but the Bush Administration has made the assertion of unchecked executive authority one of its hallmarks.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
