ACL Chapter 4 pt 5

Chapter 4: Constitutional Underpinnings of the Presidency

Section 1: Context of Extraordinary Powers

• Historical Context: Post-World War II environment necessitates extraordinary powers in the U.S. government.

• United Nations Charter: U.S. instrumental in its adoption and encourages member nations to assist one another against threats, highlighted by the support for the Korean conflict.

• Truman and Marshall Plans: Legislative responses aimed to reinforce mutual security and provide economic assistance to allies (e.g., Greece, Turkey, Western Europe).

• NATO Treaty (1949): Establishes collective defense; an attack against one member is considered an attack against all.

Section 2: Presidential Responsibility

• Constitutional Obligation: The President must ensure laws are executed faithfully, particularly in times of national crisis.

Section 3: The Steel Seizure Case (1952) Overview

• Events of April 8, 1952: President seizes steel mills amidst strikes that threaten national defense procurement and economic stability.

• Legislative Programs: President's actions aimed to protect both military procurement and inflation stabilization laws.

• Communication with Congress: President informs Congress of his actions and expresses willingness to abide by Congress's decisions.

Section 4: Legislative Context and Presidential Choices

• Statutory Framework: The president had two legal routes (Taft-Hartley Act and Defense Production Act) to address the labor strike.

• Procedures Exhausted: Before seizure, the President exhausted all available settlement options with the unions, affirming the need for immediate action.

• Military and Economic Threat: Delay in steel production posed immediate risks to the nation's defense and economy, prompting the President's decisive action.

Section 5: Legal Implications of Executive Actions

• Judicial Review: Uncertainty exists in judicial assessments of the President's powers during emergencies, impacting interpretations of executive authority.

• Executive Action: Historical precedent supports the idea that the President can act urgently to fulfill legislative requirements, primarily under Article II of the Constitution.

• Temporary Seizure: The government operation of the mills was intended to be short-term and under congressional oversight following the crisis.

Section 6: Views on Judicial Independence and Executive Power

• Judicial Timidity: The argument highlights the danger of an overly cautious judiciary that may prevent necessary executive responses in emergencies.

• Presidential Leadership: The President's capacity to act decisively aligns with constitutional duties during severe national challenges.

Section 7: Chief Justice's Opinions on Executive Power

• Arguments Against Broad Powers: The opinion emphasizes limits to executive power, focusing on accountability and adherence to legislative intent.

• Emergency Actions: The necessity of maintaining legislative integrity while managing executive actions in crisis situations correlates with historical precedent.

Section 8: Future of Presidential Powers

• Enduring Implications: The outcomes of these legal frameworks and historical precedents matter significantly for future interpretations of executive power and the limits thereof.

Case Studies: Presidential Actions and Judicial Oversight

Section 1: Wiener v. United States (1958)

• Background: President Eisenhower's removal of Wiener from the War Claims Commission.

• Legal Focus: Examines the scope of presidential powers to remove officials without cause, touching upon historical precedents of executive authority.

Section 2: United States v. Nixon (1974)

• Significance: Addressed the issue of executive privilege in the context of the Watergate scandal.

• Outcome: Supreme Court decision emphasized the limits of presidential privilege, affirming judicial authority to review actions taken by the President related to criminal investigations.

Section 3: Clinton v. Jones (1997)

• Context: Consideration of civil lawsuits against a sitting President based on previous conduct.

• Court's Decision: The ruling concluded that the President does not have absolute immunity and must be accountable for non-official actions.

Key Takeaways

• Separation of Powers: Essential in maintaining the balance of authority among government branches, ensuring accountability without risking governmental function.

• Presidential Responsibility: Balance between executing laws and upholding the tenets of the Constitution during unprecedented situations is crucial to governance.