What happened in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer?
Society News
“The accumulation of all powers, Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” – James Madison
Justice Jackson’s test is a valid measure for determining the legitimate use of Executive Orders as it supports a limited government. Through their colonial experience, the Framers learned that an unchecked executive can lead to an abuse of power. In Fed 51, James Madison argued that as people naturally seek power, limits are necessary to prevent any branch from being tyrannical. By separating the powers of government, the Constitution outlines the powers of the executive branch, but it does not specifically mention executive orders. During the Great Depression and World War II, the president’s power expanded to meet these crises, resulting in FDR issuing over 3,000 executive orders. Though most orders were justified responses to the crises, some were overreaches of power, as seen when FDR’s executive orders enforcing NIRA were deemed unconstitutional in Poultry Corp v. United States. Jackson’s test limits these overreaches by holding executive orders accountable to the Constitution and Congress, while still letting the president act in times of crisis. While President Bush’s executive order to create the Office of Homeland Security following 9/11 was appropriate, the court used the test to limit the president’s creation of military commissions in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld because it overreached his commander in chief powers. By establishing this check, the test discourages presidents from issuing orders that might go beyond their power, shown by the 75% drop in executive orders after the creation of this test.
Executive orders fit within our system of checks and balances because the Courts and Congress can limit them. The courts check executive orders through Judicial Review, as seen in Biden v. Nebraska, when the Supreme Court struck down the administration’s student loan forgiveness plan, ruling that the president can not cancel billions in debt without congressional approval, reinforcing Congress’s power of the purse and how judicial review enforces a limit on executive action. Congress can override executive orders by passing a law, however the president can veto that law, but Congress can override that veto with a two-thirds supermajority vote from the House and the Senate. This long process and our polarizing political system makes it difficult to respond to executive orders in a timely fashion through Congress, especially during times of emergency. Executive orders cannot act as a check on other branches, however it can push a silent Congress to take action. During the Civil War, President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which paved the way for later civil rights acts as well as passing the 13th Amendment. This use of executive orders was also seen with Obama in 2012 to try to force congress to revise immigration policies, showing the importance of executive orders within checks and balances, as they can be used to activate a silent Congress.
The president should not be able to impound funds, as it concentrates too much power in the executive and replaces the judgment of an entire representative body. Congress, the branch closest to the people, directs federal spending through a detailed budget process that includes diverse perspectives and expertise from both the House and Senate. If a president could impound funds, they would override the decisions of the people’s representatives, ultimately weakening the separation of powers. By passing the Impoundment Control Act in 1974, Congress established a formal process for the President to cancel or temporarily delay spending, but only with congressional approval, showing that the legislative agrees that the President should not be able to edit the government budget. In Clinton v. New York, the court determined that by canceling selected portions of the bill, President Clinton overstepped executive powers, showing that the courts also agree that the president should not be able to impound funds. When an executive decides to defer payments that Congress determines is an appropriate use of funds, like when President Trump froze funds to assist Ukraine, it ignores the separation of powers. Although the president can veto a budget, once it becomes law, the president should not be able to impound funds because it disregards our government’s balance of power.
When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body…there can be no liberty… – Montesquieu
Written by Max Reimer
