Question

[RJLipkin at aol.com]

"But even if this be true, Congress has not thereby lost its exclusive  
constitutional authority to make laws necessary and proper to carry out the  powers 
vested by the Constitution' in the Government of the United States, or in  
any Department or Officer thereof.'"   Is this statement saying that  if they 
allowed the president the power to take over the steel mills through  executive 
order and he exercises a power not expressly granted to him through  the 
Constitution or by Congress, that it would upset the balance of power to the  point 
that authority to make laws would in effect be shared between Congress and  
the President?
 
Consider the entire paragraph from which the above is taken:  
 
A.   It is said that other Presidents without congressional authority have 
taken  possession of private business enterprises in order to settle labor 
disputes.  But even if this be true, Congress has not thereby lost its exclusive  
constitutional authority to make laws necessary and proper to carry out the  
powers vested by the Constitution’ in the Government of the United States, or in 
 any Department or Officer thereof.’ 
This  paragraph rejects the idea that since previous presidents have taken 
property  without congressional authority, it's alright if Truman does so in 
these  circumstances. 
 
Does this help?  
 
RJL


Robert Justin  Lipkin
Professor of Law
Widener University School of  Law
Delaware

Ratio Juris
,  Contributor: _  http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/_ 
(http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/) 
Essentially Contested  America, Editor-In-Chief 
_http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/_ (http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/) 



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20071013/3857ed99/attachment.htm