While parts of the united states:the apparatus continues to be held closed is there a name as an observer in Sweden should quickly familiarize themselves with: Youngstown.
in Youngstown, Ohio, the small town in the midwest with 65 000 inhabitants, which has been called “the epitome of the post-industrial united states” and where president Donald Trump falsely claimed to have won in the elections of 2016. Or as in ”Youngstown”, the ballad by Bruce Springsteen.
And, most importantly of all, as in "Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer”, a judgment of the united states supreme court in 1952 and the most important case when it comes to defining the limits of presidential power. If Trump announces a state of national emergency in order to fund a wall along the mexican border, as he has threatened to do, you will again and again hear about this ruling.
a dramatic prehistory. In the midst of the Korean war, was the leader of the steel industry said ' no ' to parts of a collective agreement, proposed by the government, the authority for lönestabilitet. On april 4, 1952, announced the representatives of the steel workers that a nationwide strike would begin five days later.
Only a few hours before the strike would begin ordered president Truman's commerce Charles Sawyer to take control of the factories so that they could be held in time. Truman argued that a disruption in production could potentially destroy the war effort. No steel, no ammunition.
achieved the same result by invoking a law of relationships in the labour market referred to as the Taft-Hartley Act – a decision that had aroused fierce protests from the trade union movement. Had he acted with the support of this law, he would formally have ordered stålarbetarnas unions to not strike. For democrat Truman had this been politically untenable.
instead, claimed the president that he could seize the factories, in virtue of its inherent power, ”inherent power”, that were added to the nation's highest executive and commander in chief.
instead claimed president Truman that he could seize the factories, in virtue of its intrinsic force.
A constitutional battle erupted with the representatives of the steel industry as kärandepart. Could the president act to prevent the occurrence of a national emergency-if congress had neither allowed or explicitly forbidden him to do it? Youngstown Sheet and Tube was the name of the plaintiff. And when the legal case be invoked in legal and political debates have the name become ”Youngstown” (the actual steel company struck again in 1977, as a symbol of the nation's post-industrial misery).
court cases relating to the executive's scope is so complicated is the wording of the u.s. constitution. Article I describes in detail congressional power. An example is that it explicitly states that its powers include the right to decide on taxes and spending in the nation's interest. On the other hand, describes Article II the executive power in general and ambiguous terms. 1787 was the office is relatively small and weak, and to define it in detail was not considered necessary.
In the case of Youngstown took the HD to a decision which, fortunately, was not to the president's advantage. The court rejected, in particular, the claim that the president had the right to lay claim to the nation's steel mills, with reference to the vague wording in Article II. Anyway, they gave the heaviest HD-the members within the majority a variety of reasons for the decision, which led to uncertainty about the consequences of Youngstown for future cases.
One could argue that Trumps the boundary wall is about foreign policy. Here the courts have traditionally given the president much greater flexibility.
Judge Robert Jackson (earlier the chief prosecutor in the nuremburg trials), a particularly influential analysis in which he attempted to provide guidance for cases that ended up in what he called ”a skymningszon”.
Gränsmuren can be counted to that category.
finance, the wall on his own volition, it is probably simplest to invoke a national emergency, the National Emergencies Act). It makes it possible for him to activate clauses in other federal laws – which in turn would allow him to, for example, redirect the dormant defence spending to the wall.
One can discuss if this behaviour is correct or not, but it would not be considered of course, illegal because the president has broad discretion to define the meaning of a state of national emergency. And in contrast to Youngstown, where Truman made the claims on the extensive domestic political power, one could argue Trumps the boundary wall is about foreign policy. Here the courts have traditionally given the president much greater flexibility.
to power with a promise not to compromise on key issues. He repeated several times that he ”never ever fail”, and this was never more strongly expressed than when he asserted that he would build a boundary wall.
After mellanårsvalet controlled house of representatives and senate of different parties. We can expect that Trump will try to bypass congress to keep their campaign promises. We can also expect that he, in the populist spirit, the will to make it through to bring the national nödlägets ghost.
This will put the issue originally raised by Youngstown in the new focus. If we have luck it will in turn lay the foundation for more clarity in the future when it comes to the law and the constitution.