*SEPARATION OF POWERS: War, Foreign Policy and Presidential Power

Question 1

b) Youngstown sheet & Tube Co v. Sawyer (the Steel Seizure Case) (1952)(p.176)

Answer 1

i) Facts: President Truman issued an executive order to seize steel mills in order to prevent potential strike from affecting steel supplies necessary for the war effort in Korea.
ii) Held: Court held the President did not have the constitutional authority to seize and operate the steel mills.

Question 2

Youngstown Concurrence by Justice Jackson

Answer 2

(1) When the president acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum.
(2) Zone of Twilight. Congress has not clearly said yes or no
(a) History matters - what have past Presidents done that has been accepted. If Pres. exercises a power, and Congress does not stop it, or the country as a whole accepts it, that very fact of either public or congressional acquiescence has legal significance.
(3) President’s powers are the least when the Present is acting against the clearly expressed or implied will of Congress, can only rely upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the matter.
(a) E.g. Article 2: president has the power to pardon people and congress cannot take this away.

Question 3

c) Emergency Powers:

Answer 3

in a moment of genuine emergency, when the government must act with no time for deliberation, the executive may be able to act if there is reason to fear an imminent threat to the safety of the nation, but it must be limited by necessity.

Question 4

d) Executive Orders:

Answer 4

i) Related to organization of the executive branch, use of federal property and terms on which the federal government will enter into contracts

Question 5

Dames & Moore v. Reagan (1981)(p.184)

Answer 5

The Court held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act constituted a specific congressional authorization for the president to order the transfer of Iranian assets. The Court further held that although the IEEPA itself did not authorize the presidential suspension of legal claims, previous acts of congress had implicitly approved of executive control of claim settlement. The court emphasized the narrowness of its ruing, limiting its decision to the facts of the case.