Steel Seizure Case Analysis

512 Words3 Pages
Opponents of the War Powers Act do not solely rest their arguments on decided cases. They also refer to consistent historical practice. Certainly their evidence is strong. It cannot be denied that executives over the course of history have come to assume the authority to commit American forces based on their own initiative and that Congress has rarely done anything to interfere with, let alone stop the President’s operation. However, that does not need to be viewed as stating a rule; it may only be a statement of a very real and imminent problem. For unless this power has always rested with the executive branch under the constitutional scheme, all that has permitted executives to act in this fashion has been the acquiescence of Congress. Such acquiescence displayed by Congress might make the President's unencumbered action presumptively valid, but it…show more content…
Both cases revolved around claims of "inherent" executive authority to act. In Steel Seizure, President Truman claimed the right to overrun the nation's steel mills, relying in part on the Commander-in-Chief clause. The Court rejected the President's claim, but Justice Frankfurter, in his concurring opinion, suggested that "a systematic, unbroken executive practice, long pursued to the knowledge of Congress and never before questioned ...may be treated as a gloss on 'executive Power' vested in the President" by article II. Frankfurter’s reasoning was carried over into the logic behind the Courts decision in the Iranian Assets Case. This case came about when President Jimmy Carter invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and froze Iranian assets in the United States in reaction to the seizure of the U.S. embassy and American nationals in Iran. The hostages were released in 1981 pursuant to an executive agreement that terminated legal claims between the government of each party and the nationals of the other and brought

More about Steel Seizure Case Analysis

Open Document