Steel Seizure Case

[Scott Gerber]

As far as I know, this is the first time that Sandy has acknowledged on 
the list that Bush was elected president.  I mention in a forthcoming 
Journal of American History review of Larry Kramer's book The People 
Themselves that the 2004 election has consequences for Kramer's project 
as well.

Scott Gerber
Law College 
Ohio Northern University


Sanford Levinson wrote:


>David asks an important question.  There's no doubt that the Seizure has
>to be understood within the context of American domestic politics,
>including militant labor opposition to the Taft-Hartley Act.  But, then,
>one might argue that the Bush Administration's policies also have to be
>understood within domestic politics, as it is only their success in
>portraying themselves as "warriors against terrorism" that accounts for,
>say, the savaging and defeat of Max Cleland in 2002 and Bush's very
>slendor victory in 2004.  (I offer the following testable hypothesis:
>There will be more "terror alerts" as we get closer to the November 2006
>elections.)
> 
>sandy
>
>________________________________
>
>From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
>[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of
>DavidEBernstein at aol.com
>Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 10:07 AM
>To: Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>Subject: Steel Seizure Case 
>
>
>If I'm reading the dissent correctly, Truman's ultimate justification
>for seizing the steel mills is not really his war power, but his desire
>to protect his (inane) economic stabilization plan by not agreeing to
>increase prices paid to the steel companies  for steel. (Truman: "The
>only was that I kow of ... by which a steel shut-down could have been
>avoided was to grant the demands of the steel industry for a large price
>increase.... this would have wrecked our stabilization program.") This
>seems like an incredibly thin reed on which to justify dictatorial
>executive action, seems to directly contradict and even go beyond the
>unanimous opinion in Schechter Poultry regarding executive power (no
>longer good law in 1952 at all?) and but doesn't seem to be focused on
>by any of the other opinions.  Am I missing something?  Why do the
>Justices even take seriously the War Powers argument when Truman himself
>admits that the ultimate foundation of his actions was "economic
>stabilization."
> 
>David E. Bernstein
>Visiting Professor
>University of Michigan School of Law
>Professor
>George Mason University School of Law
>http://mason.gmu.edu/~dbernste
>


------------------------------------------------------------------------


_______________________________________________
>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly 
or wrongly) forward the messages to others.

--------------------------------------

Scott Gerber
Law College
Ohio Northern University
Ada, OH 45810
419-772-2219
http://www.law.onu.edu/faculty/gerber/