. vs. Sawyer. President Truman attempted to seize the nations steel mills for fear of nationwide strike. Truman felt that this would be detrimental to the national defense. Congress did not authorize the seizure and provided president with an additional manner to handle this situation. Nonetheless, Truman seized the mills despite congress’ disapproval. Truman relied on authority granted by the commander-in-chief clause in the constitution. (Mason, 135-139)(Goldberg, 33-34) The Supreme Court decided that the President had no power to seize the mill in absence of congressional approval. Justice Frankfurter reasoned that the Taft-Hartley Act (state that strikes by federal employees are outlawed) expressly denied the president the authority to monopolize war powers. In addition, Frankfurter also noted that executive practice with the acquiescence of congress is deceptive. Justice Jackson also ascertained that powers of president are at it’s maximum when implicit by congressional authority and when president acts specifically to his realm of presidential powers. Hence, the Supreme Court denied power of president to seize the steel mill during the Korean War is absence of congressional authority acknowledging the prominence of balancing powers. (RushKoff, 1342-1343)(Goldberg, 33-34)(Mason, 135-139) The Founding Fathers balance the separation of powers manifested in various forms in the Constitution. The original intent of the founding fathers in terms of balanced separation of powers is met in the War Powers Resolution. The congressional power to declare war was meant as one of several checks on the President’s authority over the use of American military forces. The War Powers Resolution helped to restore war power balance between the president and congress. Further, it is a practical restraint on the presidential use of armed forces and an appropriate mechanism for the president Klimis 5and the congress to sh...
