Evening star., 1952-04-26

encroach upon the power and authority
of the other.
Judge Pine: Well, isn't it your con-
ception of our Government that it is
a Government whose powers are derived
solely from the Constitution of the
United States?
Mr.. Baldridge: That is correct.
Judge Pine: And is it not so that
it is also your view that its powers are
limited and enumerated by the Constl-
tuition of the United States?
Mr.. Baldridge: That is true, your
Honor, with respect to legislative
powers.
Judge Pine: But not true as to the
Executive?
Mr.. Baldridge: Section l, Article II
OF the Constitution reposes all of the
executive power in the Chief Executive.
And 1 think that the distinction that
the Constitution itself makes between
the powers of the executive and the
powers OF the legislative branch of the
Government is significant and impor-
tant.
Insofar as the Executive is con-
cerned, all executive power is vested in
the President. Insofar as legislative
powers are concerned, the Congress
has only those powers that are specifi-
cally delegated to it plus the implied
powers to carry out the specifically
enumerated powers.
Judge Pine: So when the sovereign
people gave the powers enumerated in
the Constitution it limited Congress. it
limited the judiciary, but it did not
limit the Executive?
Mr.. Baldridge: That is the way we
read Article II of the Constitution.
Judge Pine: see. have never heard
that expressed in any authoritative
opinions OF any court. If you have any,
l would certainly like to hear them.
Mr.. Baldridge: Well, was going
to get in moment to the attempts
that have been made on the part of
the courts to enjoin the Executive,
Judge Pine: Very well. -.
Mr.. Baldridge: The question here is
not whether this is suit against the
United States but whether the President
is in fact an indispensable party to the
suit. And based on the discussion made
here yesterday I submit that the Presi-
dent is an indispensable party because
clearly in the executive order it was the
President that seized. True the me-
chanical details of carrying out the
seizure were delegated to his alter ego.
the Secretary of Commerce, but we can't
lose sight of the fact that the action of
seizure was the act of the President, not
the act of any other officer of the Fed
eral Government.
Now the next question that the court
posed was request for cases holding
that the court cannot enjoin the Presi-
dent. I think indicated yesterday that
the case of Mississippi v. johnson re-
ported in Wallace is the only instance
in which an attempt was made to invoke
the power Of the court directly against
the executive.
If your Honor will recall in that case
the State of Mississippi sought to re-
strain the President and General Orr
from carrying into effect the Post War
Reconstruction Act on the ground that
they were illegally attempting to impose
unconstitutional legislation on the State
of Mississippi. And the Supreme Court
refused to enjoin either the President or
his military commander. Gen. Orr, on
the ground that the Commander in
Chief. the President, was performing
purely executive or military duties in
enforcing the law, whether constitu-
tionally valid or not.
In that connection the Court said, and
quote:
1.-The Congress is the legislative de-
partment of the Government. The
President is the executive department.
Neither can be restrained in it's action by
the judicial department, though the acts
of both, when performed, are in proper
cases subject to its cognizance."
I submit that there again is restate-
ment of the Separation of Powers Doc
trine, which is part of our constitu-
tional system, that one branch of the
Government will not encroach except in
an incidental overlapping on the powers
and duties of another of the two CO.
equal branches.
It is our position that the President is
accountable only to the country, and
that the decisions of the President are