Why Youngstown, Ohio is famous: In 1951, US steelworkers threatened a nationwide strike following a labor dispute. In 1952, US President Truman ordered the Sec. of Commerce to seize the nation's steel factories. Steel companies protested the seizure. These actions eventually resulted in a June 2, 1952 Supreme Court decision entitled, "Youngstown Sheet and Tube v Sawyer," Sawyer being US government via Charles Sawyer, US Sec. of Commerce. The Supreme Court ruled that a US president could not seize the steel mills:
...........
"Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer," 343 U.S. 579 (1952), US Supreme Court, decided June 2, 1952:
...........
...........
"To avert a nationwide 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 a 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. 343 U. S. 584-585.
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. 343 U. S. 584-585.
(a) Under prior decisions of this Court, there is doubt as to the right to recover in the Court of Claims on account of properties unlawfully taken by government officials for public use. P. 343 U. S. 585.
(b) Seizure and governmental operation of these going businesses were bound to result in many present and future damages of such nature as to be difficult, if not incapable, of measurement. P. 343 U. S. 585.
Page 343 U. S. 580
2. The Executive Order was not authorized by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and it cannot stand. Pp. 343 U. S. 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. 343 U. S. 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. 343 U. S. 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. 343 U. S. 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. 343 U. S. 587.
(e) Nor can the Order be sustained because of the several provisions of Article II which grant executive power to the President. Pp. 343 U. S. 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. 343 U. S. 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. 343 U. S. 588-589.
103 F.Supp. 569, affirmed."...
===============
............
............
"Charles Sawyer, Secretary of Commerce, Petitioner v. The Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company, et al.," 1952, US gov. printing office
........................
More on this case:
"Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer," casebriefs.com
"Held. No. The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
Justice Hugo Black stated that there was no statute that expressly conferred upon President Truman the power to seize the mills. There are no provisions of the Constitution, or combination of provisions thereof, which gave the President the authority to take possession of property as he did.
Dissent. Chief Justice Fred Vinson (J. Vinson) argued that we must consider the context in which the President’s powers were exercised – a national exigency. The President’s power to seize the steel mills derives from his duty to executive legislative programs the success of which depends upon the continued production of steel.
Concurrence.
Justice Felix Frankfurter (J. Frankfurter) stated that Congress could not have more emphatically expressed its will that the executive seizure was not authorized than it did in the Taft Hartley Act of 1947.
Justice Robert Jackson (J. Jackson) said that when the President takes actions inconsistent with the will of Congress, his powers are at their lowest level. Then, he can only rely on his own constitutional powers minus any powers given to Congress on the same matter.
(Justice Douglas) The branch of government with the power to pay for a seizure is the only one that can authorize one -Congress. If we authorized the President’s act, we would be expanding his powers under Article Two.
Discussion. This case calls into question the extent and the source(s) of the emergency powers of the President, if any, under the Constitution."
...........
===============
........
"Held. No. The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
Justice Hugo Black stated that there was no statute that expressly conferred upon President Truman the power to seize the mills. There are no provisions of the Constitution, or combination of provisions thereof, which gave the President the authority to take possession of property as he did.
Dissent. Chief Justice Fred Vinson (J. Vinson) argued that we must consider the context in which the President’s powers were exercised – a national exigency. The President’s power to seize the steel mills derives from his duty to executive legislative programs the success of which depends upon the continued production of steel.
Concurrence.
Justice Felix Frankfurter (J. Frankfurter) stated that Congress could not have more emphatically expressed its will that the executive seizure was not authorized than it did in the Taft Hartley Act of 1947.
Justice Robert Jackson (J. Jackson) said that when the President takes actions inconsistent with the will of Congress, his powers are at their lowest level. Then, he can only rely on his own constitutional powers minus any powers given to Congress on the same matter.
(Justice Douglas) The branch of government with the power to pay for a seizure is the only one that can authorize one -Congress. If we authorized the President’s act, we would be expanding his powers under Article Two.
Discussion. This case calls into question the extent and the source(s) of the emergency powers of the President, if any, under the Constitution."
...........
........
United States Supreme Court
YOUNGSTOWN CO. v. SAWYER, (1952)
No. 744
Argued: 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:
- See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/343/579.html#sthash.vifd7C81.dpuf
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:
- See more at:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/343/579.html#sthash.vifd7C81.dpuf
......................
No comments:
Post a Comment