Amending the Constitution Relative to the Taking of Private PropertyU.S. Government Printing Office, 1954 - 31 strani |
Druge izdaje - Prikaži vse
Pogosti izrazi in povedi
act of Congress action amend the Constitution argued Association of Manufacturers Bricker amendment Chairman CHAUNCEY CHAUNCEY W Chief Executive CONGRES LIBRARY CONGRES THE LIBRARY CONGRESS LIBRARY CONGRESS OF CONGRESS CONGRESS THE LIBRARY Congressman construed to extend CURTIS Davis decision due process emer enacted executive power exercise February 24 fifth amendment gency House of Representatives inherent power JONES Justice Clark labor dispute legislation LIBRARY OF CONGRES LIBRARY OF CONGRESS MALCOLM MECARTNEY manner prescribed matter McCULLOCH ment military National Association necessary PAT MCCARRAN PERLMAN power to seize prescribed by act process of law prohibit property without due proposed amendment proposed constitutional amendment PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT question RARY OF CONGRESS REED S. J. Res seize private property seize property seizure powers Senate Joint Resolution Senator MCCARRAN statement statute statutory authority Steel Seizure subcommittee Supreme Court Taft-Hartley Act take private property taking of private treaties unanimous consent calendar United States relative Washington
Priljubljeni odlomki
Stran 24 - Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and as President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the armed forces of the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows: 1.
Stran 26 - President that his action was necessary to avert a national catastrophe which would inevitably result from a stoppage of steel production, and that in meeting this grave emergency the President was acting within the aggregate of his constitutional powers as the Nation's Chief Executive and the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States.
Stran 24 - theater of war' be an expanding concept, we cannot with faithfulness to our constitutional system hold that the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces has the ultimate power as such to take possession of private property in order to keep labor disputes from stopping production. This is a job for the Nation's lawmakers, not for its military authorities.
Stran 7 - Constitution already prohibits the taking of private property without due process of law and the Court construed that provision in the Steel Seizure case.
Stran 26 - Barreme, but also by a score of other pronouncements of distinguished members of this bench — the Constitution does grant to the President extensive authority in times of grave and imperative national emergency. In fact, to my thinking, such a grant may well be necessary to the very existence of the Constitution itself. As Lincoln aptly said, "[is] it possible to lose the Nation and yet preserve the Constitution?" In describing this authority I care not whether one calls it "residual," "inherent,"...
Stran 26 - I conclude that where Congress has laid down specific procedures to deal with the type of crisis confronting the President, he must follow those procedures in meeting the crisis; but that In the absence of such actions by Congress, the President's independent power to act depends upon the gravity of the situation con-fronting the nation.
Stran 26 - J., concurring. clarity of the congressional reservation of seizure for its own consideration. The foregoing circumstances distinguish this emergency from one in which Congress takes no action and outlines no governmental policy. In the case before us, Congress authorized a procedure which the President declined to follow.
Stran 16 - Association, the United States Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the...
Stran 24 - Forces. The Government attempts to do so by citing a number of cases upholding broad powers in military commanders engaged in day-to-day fighting in a theater of war. Such cases need not concern us here. Even though "theater of war...
Stran 24 - The President's power, if any, to issue the order must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself. There is no statute that expressly authorizes the President to take possession of property as he did here. Nor is there any act of Congress to which our attention has been directed from which such a power can fairly be implied.