In drafting the Constitution, the Founding Fathers purposely set up a structure of government that divided power between different branches. Congress is empowered to make law, the Executive is empowered to enforce the laws, and the Courts interpret the laws. The system was inherently designed so that there were checks and balances over each respective branch of government. Congress can override a Presidential veto with a certain amount of votes. The President has the power to appoint Supreme Court judges and federal judges. And the Judicial branch oversees the constitutionality of statutes and actions taken by both Congress and the President. These checks and balances act to ensure that power is not concentrated in one single branch of government.
Although separation of powers is a bedrock constitutional principle, there is constant vying for power between the co-equal branches. When one branch of government exceeds its authority under the Constitution, it is up to the other branches of government to bring the balance of power back in stride. History reveals that most tension occurs between Congress and the President. The President of the United States commands a great deal of authority and influence. One of the President’s most formidable powers is the power to issue executive orders in furtherance that the laws of the United States be “faithfully executed.” But the President’s authority is not unlimited, and there have been a number of times when either Congress or the Courts reigned in unfettered Presidential power.
The Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer case illustrates a prominent example of a President exceeding the scope of Executive power under the Constitution. The case took place during the Korean War. Usually, the Supreme Court is highly deferential to Executive action taken in the sphere of foreign policy or military affairs. This is because policy decisions are usually best left to Congress and the Executive. It is not for the courts to question the overarching wisdom of the particular policies implemented by Congress or the Executive. Thus, a court cannot substitute its own judgment for that of Congress or the Executive. Instead, the courts are confined to reviewing the actions of these branches for constitutionality. Rarely has the Supreme Court ever found Presidential action to exceed the Executive power and thereby be unconstitutional. In the exceptional case of Youngstown Sheet, however, the Supreme Court held that the Presidential action was in fact unconstitutional.
Steel was an integral part of the war effort to manufacture weapons and other military equipment. In 1951, however, a dispute surfaced between the steel companies and the workers relating to certain terms and conditions in the collective bargaining agreements (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer 582). After continuous conferences failed to settle the dispute, the steel workers gave notice of their intention to go on strike after the existing bargaining agreements terminated on December 31 of that year (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer 582).
The President intervened, referring the matter to the Federal Wage Stabilization Board to recommend equitable and fair terms for settlement (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer 582-583). The parties again were unable to reach a settlement. Thereafter, the steelworkers Union gave notice of a nationwide strike effective at 12:01 am on April 9, 1952 (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer 583). The President believed that stoppage of the steel mills would seriously undermine and endanger the United States’ war effort and that government takeover of the mills was needed to assure the sustained availability of steel (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer 583). The President issued Executive Order 10340, which instructed the Secretary of Commerce to take possession of the steel mills (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer 583).
The issue in this case was whether the President exceeded his Executive power, in the absence of Congressional authorization, by seizing the steel mills. For a President to act within Constitutional authority, the power must either stem directly from the Constitution or from an act of Congress (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer 585). It was clear that there was no Congressional act or statute which authorized the President to take control of the steel mills (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer 583). The problem with this Executive Order was that it was an attempt to legislate, a power that is specifically granted to Congress alone (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer 588). In this instant, the President’s Executive Order completely bypassed Congress in furtherance of the President carrying out Executive policy (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer 588).
The crux of this case was whether the President overstepped Congress in issuing Executive Order 10340, which in effect, made new law without Congressional approval. Notwithstanding the current war effort, the Court emphatically stated that Congress has the power to make laws in both times of peace and war (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer 589). Had Congress passed an act or authorized the seizure of the steel mills, this would be a very different case. But Congress did not authorize such action, either expressly or impliedly. Absent Congressional approval, the President exceeds his power when the President attempts to make new law.
Although the Court found that the President had exceeded his authority under the Constitution, the line between constitutional and unconstitutional Executive action is not always clear. Recognizing the difficulties of line drawing when the powers of Congress and the President sometimes overlap, Justice Jackson, in a famous concurrence, outlined three categories of Presidential power in relation to Congress. First, when the President is acting pursuant to Congressional authorization, the President’s authority to act is at its highest (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer 635). Second, when the President acts absent Congressional approval or authority, the President must rely on his own independent powers (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer 637). Justice Jackson described this second category as a twilight zone, where Congress and the President might have concurrent powers (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer 637). Third, when the President takes actions in conflict with the will of Congress, the President’s powers are at its lowest (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer 637).
The Youngstown Sheet case is a prime example of the Supreme Court stepping in to delineate the boundaries of power between their counterpart branches of government. Had the Court not declared the President’s actions unconstitutional, it would set dangerous precedent for Executive authority. The Executive Order would become a tool to consistently delegate legislative power to the Executive. But under the Constitution, Congress is the only branch of government empowered to make laws. Maintaining the separation of powers is crucial to a democratic society. Were any one branch of government to become too powerful and this power went unchecked, the political system that the Founding Fathers so jealously coveted would quickly erode into tyranny.
Works Cited
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579. Supreme Court of the US
(1952). Web. 3 Mar. 2016.
