Evening star., 1952-05-05
To the Editor of The Stor:

THE ADMIRABLE OPINION Of Judge
l. Pine in the steel seizure controversy
has received public attention commen-
Surate with its Importance and bids fair
to achieve recognition as truly historic
judicial utterance. While agreeing fully
with everything that Judge Pine has
said. have received the impression that
many persons would have been pleased
If he had presented in his opinion q
more complete discussion Of the Com
mander-in-C Chief power of the President
considered as a separate substantive
source Of constitutional power. Judge
Pines opinion certainly has refuted the
il-advised contention that the Presi-
dents executive power is without any
practical limit because of the theory
that there is "a broad residuum of
power" vested in the President under
the Constitution by virtue of the very
general statement at the commence
ment Of Article to the effect that "The
Executive Power Is vested in the Presi-
dent Of the United States Of America"
The difficulty which many persons feel
with regard to any attempt to define
the powers OF the President which have
bearing on military emergencies arises
from the perhaps unconscious pre-
Supposition that if the exertion of some
governmental power for dealing with
military exigencies of any sort in war
or peace seems necessary in particular
circumstances, the power needed must
be regarded as vested in the President.
The powers of the President in relation
to military matters, whether in time of
war or in time of peace, are simply the
powers of the Commander int Chief of
the Army and Navy for this is the only
specific war power granted to him. The
Commander in Chief of the Army and
Navy is not by virtue Of his Office Com
mander-in-C Chief of the whole body of
citizens The confusion of thought
which exists on this subject is due to a
mistaken inference from q correct as
sumption. The correct assumption is
that the Nation has complete power to
take any action whatsoever that may
be necessary for its self defense. These
powers are in truth vested in the Gov
ernment of the United States as a
whole, but they are distributed as be-
tween the President, the Congress, and
the courts of the United States. It is
an erroneous inference to make from
the reasonable assumption stated above
that the United States has complete
legal powers in the field of self defense
If we draw from this basic aSSump-
ton the implication or conclusion that
the President must have the power be-
cause the Nation has it, Certainly the
general scheme Of the Constitution ap-
pears to grant a large part of the war
powers" to Congress. It is specifically
stated in Section 8, Article l, that Con-
greSS shall have power, first, ITO declare
war and make rules concerning
captures on land and water; second.
TO raise and support armies; third.
TO provide and maintain a Navy:
fourth. Ito make rules for the govern
ment and regulation Of the land and
naval forces; fifth, Ito provide for call
Ing forth the Militia to execute the laws
OF the Union, suppress instructions and
repel 1nvaSionS"; sixth, ito provide for
organizing, arming and disciplining the
Militia and for governing such part of
them as may be employed in the serv-
ice OF the United States, :. ." In addi-
ton to this. Congress is empowered Ito
lay and collect taxes, to provide for
the common defense g" Congress is
also empowered Ito regulate commerce
with foreign nations and among the
several States" AS every one realizes.
IL IS under this power to regulate COM
merce that Congress has passed laws
regulating the labor relations of coruo-
ratlons and business firms engaged in
interstate transactions. The regulation
OF these labor relations including the
adjustment Of strikes and labor man
agement controversies would seem tn
fall clearly within the powers of Con-
greSS.
1t should be remembered that the
President has at all times an important
share in the legislative process. He NAV
make recommendations to Congress on
the basis OF his experience in the admin
1stration Of government affairs and this
is constantly done at appropriate times.
The President may also veto legislation
that he deems unwise and, through the
threat OF veto, may control to a large
extent the form and substance of the
legislation adopted by Congress.
Certainly these powers thus granted
to Congress loom large in the picture of
the national war powers. These powers
OF Congress have always been very liber-
ally construed so that preparations for
war, the control of industries manu-
featuring war munitions, and the regu-
lation of the activities of all the citizens
in relation to the needs Of war emer-
gencies have been regarded as appro-
pirate for action by Congress rather
than by the States Of the Union. The
powers Of Congress thus construed have
hitherto proved adequate for every war
time emergency. There is, therefore, no
room for the suggestion that novel
powers must be recognized as vested in
the President because the powers of
Congress Gas distinguished from parti-
cular exertions Of that power) have been
proved to be inadequate to meet the
imperative demands of modern warfare.
Neither the President nor the judicial
courts are granted any such mass of
war powers as are granted to Congress.
In truth the specific grounds of authori-
ty to the President in this field may be
reduced to three headings: first, the
Executive power; secondly, the Com
IT,. r..