Case Study: Presidential Powers Assignment
If all the farmers in America decided to go on strike tomorrow, do you we should just
wait on a compromise, or should the president do something? Do they even have the power to
do this? These are the questions president Harry Turman asked himself when the nations steel
mills went on strike in the latter part of 1951.
To answer these questions, you must first, like the supreme court, look at the difference
between inherent executive power and stewardship power theories. Robert Longley states
inherent executive power is “powers not explicitly specified in the Constitution that enable the
government to take actions necessary to efficiently perform essential duties.” (Longley, 2021)
and Stewardship power theories is that the executive branches power on extends to what is
allowed by the constitution.
Youngstown Sheet vs Sawyer
What exactly happened in Youngstown Sheet vs Sawyer? Well as stated before, during
the latter part of 1951 the steel mill workers decided to go on strike in order to get higher wages
from the mills. Well president Harry Turman, after trying to help the union and companies come
to an agreement, believed the strike likely lead to a catastrophe from a stoppage of steel
production. The president then issued Executive Order 10340. The order directed the Secretary
of Commerce to take possession of most of the steel mills and keep them running. The President
reported this to congress. The companies bought proceedings against the president claiming the
seizure was not authorized by an Act of Congress or by any constitutional provisions. Holding
against the Government on all points, the District Court on April 30 issued a preliminary
injunction restraining the Secretary from “continuing the seizure and possession of the
plants...and from acting under the purported authority of Executive Order No. 10340.” It then
went to the supreme court. Who ruled six agreed that the President acted in outside his duties
under the Constitution and three argued he was within his power.
Inherent executive power
In this section I will discuss the parts of the case that fall under the inherent executive
power mind set. The first is when the cases states “President Harry Turman believed the
government’s position is that the order was made on findings of the President that his action was
necessary to avert a national catastrophe which would inevitably result from a stoppage of steel
production.” The next is “the United States asserted that a strike disrupting steel production for
even a brief period would so endanger the well-being and safety of the Nation that the President
had “inherent power” to do what he had done power supported by the Constitution, by historical
precedent, and by court decisions.” Chief Justice Vinson, Justice Reed and Justice Minton state
“world not yet recovered from devastation of World War II has been forced to face the threat of
another and more terrifying global conflict.” and “in 1950, when the United Nations called upon
member nations “to render every assistance” to repel aggression in Korea, the United States
furnished its vigorous support". They continued with the examples of “the congressional
enactments of the Truman Plan for assistance to Greece and Turkey and the Marshall Plan for
economic aid needed to build up the strength of our friends in Western Europe. In 1949, the
Senate approved the North Atlantic Treaty under which each member nation agrees that an
armed attack against one is an armed attack against all.” They went on to give these following
reasons “the President on the night of April 8, 1952, we cannot but conclude that the President
was performing his duty under the Constitution to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully
executed.” , “the President immediately made sure that Congress was fully informed of the
temporary action he had taken only to preserve the legislative programs from destruction until
Congress could act.”, “The Union, by refusing to abide by the defense and stabilization program,
could have forced the President to invoke Taft-Hartley at that time to delay the strike a maximum
of 80 days.”, “Faced with immediate national peril through stoppage in steel production on the
one hand and faced with destruction of the wage and price legislative programs on the other, the
President took temporary possession of the steel mills as the only course open to him consistent
with his duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”, “The broad executive power
granted by Article II to an officer on duty 365 days a year cannot, it is said, be invoked to avert
disaster.”, “Seizure of [the steel companies’] property is not a pleasant undertaking. Similarly
unpleasant to a free country are the draft which disrupts the home and military procurement
which causes economic dislocation and compels adoption of price controls, wage stabilization
and allocation of materials.”, “Faced with the duty of executing the defense programs which
Congress had enacted and the disastrous effects that any stoppage in steel production would have
on these programs, the President acted to preserve those programs by seizing the steel mill.”
Stewardship power theories
The facts that fall under the Stewardship power theories category started with the union
stating “the seizure was not authorized by an Act of Congress or by any constitutional
provisions.” The district court stated “The President’s power, if any, to issue the order must stem
either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.”, “There is no statute that
expressly authorizes the President to take possession of property as he did here. Nor is there any
act of Congress to which our attention has been directed from which such a power can fairly be
implied.”, ‘There are two statutes which do authorize the President to take both personal and real
property under certain conditions. However, the Government admits that these conditions were
not met and that the President’s order was not rooted in either of the statutes.”, “Moreover, the
use of the seizure technique to solve labor disputes in order to prevent work stoppages was not
only unauthorized by any congressional enactment; prior to this controversy, Congress had
refused to adopt that method of settling labor disputes.”, “It is clear that if the President had
authority to issue the order he did, it must be found in some provision of the Constitution.”
How this case would of went in today's era
If this case were to be heard today, I think it would have ended the same. This is because it is
true that we are still in a comparable situation to when this case was ruled. For example, John Yoo states
“The Constitution clearly gives the power to set the election date to Congress, the manner of holding it
to the states (with the right of override by Congress), and leaves the president out of the electoral
count. Even if Trump wanted to delay the election, he has no power to do so.”
References
Longley, R. (2021, June 23). What Are Inherent Powers? Definition and Examples. ThoughtCo.
https://www.thoughtco.com/inherent-powers-definition-and-examples-5184079
