Ask the Scholar
Page 2 of 13
I can add historical knowledge about this page.
Page image
OCR
- 2 -
"NATIONA&
ARCHIVES AND
RECORDS
authority as a possible addition to the Taft-Hartley procedure and
specifically rejected this course of action. Thus the majority con-
clusion is, to a considerable extent, based upon the questionable
premise that Congressional action taken in a peacetime period (not to
mention the anti-labor attitude of the 80th Congress) can limit the
scope of action by the President in a subsequent period when inter-
national tensions place entirely different demands upon the President
in protecting the national interest.
3. Justices Frankfurter, Burton, Jackson and Clark place great
emphasis upon the fact that the Congress had prescribed methods by
which national emergency disputes were to be handled -- (Taft-Hartley)
or by which property was to be seized in the national interest (Selective
Service "seizure" or condemnation under Defense Production Act authority.)
Not one of these Justices, however, stated that any of these procedures
would have met the needs of the situation facing the President on
April 8. The court majority, therefore, has developed the questionable
theory that once the Congress has legislated in an area in which the
President might otherwise have had inherent power to act, the President
is powerless to take temporary action to save a situation even though
the prescribed legislative course is patently inadequate.
4. When Justice Jackson was Attorney General, he gave an opinion
which every one has regarded as authority for the action taken by the
President in seizing the steel mills. This opinion was given by Attorney
Page data
- Page
- 2
- Source index
- 0
- Type
- photo
- Media ID
- 4e6d508c3185a095
- Size
- unknown
Document data
- ID
- 159441548
- Core
- doc
- Type
- document
DTO data
{
"id": "159441548",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/159441548",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "Comments on the Majority Opinions in the Supreme Court Decision in the Steel Case, with Attachments",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/159441548",
"collections": [
"President's Secretary's Files (Truman Administration)",
"General Files"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-psf/602190/876560/876560-11-01.jpg",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-psf/602190/876560/876560-11-01.jpg",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-psf/602190/876560/876560-11-01.jpg",
"imageCount": 13,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Context sent to Scholar
Document identity
{
"localId": "159441548",
"label": "Comments on the Majority Opinions in the Supreme Court Decision in the Steel Case, with Attachments",
"core": "doc",
"dtoType": "document",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/159441548"
}
Document source metadata
{
"id": "159441548",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/159441548",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "Comments on the Majority Opinions in the Supreme Court Decision in the Steel Case, with Attachments",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/159441548",
"collections": [
"President's Secretary's Files (Truman Administration)",
"General Files"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-psf/602190/876560/876560-11-01.jpg",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-psf/602190/876560/876560-11-01.jpg",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-psf/602190/876560/876560-11-01.jpg",
"imageCount": 13,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Document source extras
{
"url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/159441548",
"naId": 159441548,
"levelOfDescription": "item",
"recordType": "description",
"ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}
Page context
{
"seq": 2,
"pageIndex": 0,
"type": "photo",
"url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-psf/602190/876560/876560-11-02.jpg",
"mediaId": "4e6d508c3185a095",
"ocrText": "- 2 -\n\"NATIONA&\nARCHIVES AND\nRECORDS\nauthority as a possible addition to the Taft-Hartley procedure and\nspecifically rejected this course of action. Thus the majority con-\nclusion is, to a considerable extent, based upon the questionable\npremise that Congressional action taken in a peacetime period (not to\nmention the anti-labor attitude of the 80th Congress) can limit the\nscope of action by the President in a subsequent period when inter-\nnational tensions place entirely different demands upon the President\nin protecting the national interest.\n3. Justices Frankfurter, Burton, Jackson and Clark place great\nemphasis upon the fact that the Congress had prescribed methods by\nwhich national emergency disputes were to be handled -- (Taft-Hartley)\nor by which property was to be seized in the national interest (Selective\nService \"seizure\" or condemnation under Defense Production Act authority.)\nNot one of these Justices, however, stated that any of these procedures\nwould have met the needs of the situation facing the President on\nApril 8. The court majority, therefore, has developed the questionable\ntheory that once the Congress has legislated in an area in which the\nPresident might otherwise have had inherent power to act, the President\nis powerless to take temporary action to save a situation even though\nthe prescribed legislative course is patently inadequate.\n4. When Justice Jackson was Attorney General, he gave an opinion\nwhich every one has regarded as authority for the action taken by the\nPresident in seizing the steel mills. This opinion was given by Attorney"
}