Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/383/690/429405/
Timestamp: 2020-01-26 18:55:45
Document Index: 45340047

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 106', '§ 1211', '§ 1216', '§ 1212', '§ 1212', '§ 1212', '§ 1216', '§ 1213', '§ 1218', '§ 1216', '§ 1218']

Baltimore Contractors, Inc., Petitioner, v. the Renegotiation Board, Respondent, 383 F.2d 690 (4th Cir. 1967) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Fourth Circuit › 1967 › Baltimore Contractors, Inc., Petitioner, v. the Renegotiation Board, Respondent
Baltimore Contractors, Inc., Petitioner, v. the Renegotiation Board, Respondent, 383 F.2d 690 (4th Cir. 1967)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 383 F.2d 690 (4th Cir. 1967) September 13, 1967
Lichter v. United States,20 which held the Renegotiation Act of 194221 to be a law necessary and proper for carrying into execution the war powers of Congress, answers many of the questions with which we are faced. While the opinion is written in terms of "total global warfare,"22 like the Tax Court, we are of the opinion that its reach is not limited to warfare so far flung.
Clearly, congressional power to raise and support armies does not depend upon the existence of a declared war. It is enough if the exigencies of the situation justify congressional use of those powers in a certain way. World War II created a pressing need for rapid procurement of new materials, at a pace and in volume without precedent, causing a breakdown in contract cost and profit analysis in virtually every sector of the American economy.23 In that atmosphere, renegotiation of defense contracts was found to be "well within the constitutional discretion of Congress. * *"24 Similarly, the outbreak of hostilities in Korea, though in smaller degree, had a marked effect upon the economy. It spawned a "vast program of military procurement"25 of "items not included in the customary output of * * * plants, as well as many items that were wholly new and unfamiliar"26 and "in enormous quantities far in excess of ordinary levels."27 As a direct result, there occurred a breakdown in the ordinary processes of defense contract pricing, making it possible for contractors to realize excessive profits on defense contracts. Under the authority of Lichter, this was ample justification for congressional action aimed at renegotiation of defense contracts, even though the entire economy was not disrupted. In addition, the clear possibility of a direct military confrontation between the United States and one or both of the major Communist powers,28 and the danger of a consequent expansion of the otherwise limited fighting into total global warfare, makes it absolutely clear that the Renegotiation Act of 1951 was a law necessary and proper to the exercise of congressional war powers, and was within the constitutional power of Congress.
The Act was intended to reach only contracts having a direct and immediate relation to national defense. The Renegotiation Board was authorized to adopt regulations defining general exemptions and, under § 106(a) (6),33 to exempt individual contracts having no such relation. There is no provision for a hearing, and the Board's decision is final and unreviewable.
The Korean Situation — Message from the President of the United States July 19, 1950, 97 Cong.Rec. 10,626-629 (1950); H.Doc.No. 646, 81st Cong., 2d Sess. (1950)
H.Rep.No. 7, 82d Cong., 1st Sess. (1951); S.Rep.No. 92, 82d Cong., 1st Sess. (1951), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin. Serv.1951, p. 1339
65 Stat. 7, 50 U.S.C.A.App. § 1211 et seq
See 50 U.S.C.A.App. § 1216
50 U.S.C.A.App. § 1212(a)
50 U.S.C.A.App. § 1212(b); cf. 50 U.S.C.A.App. § 1212(c)
50 U.S.C.A.App. § 1216(a) (6).
General Services Administration contracts are subjected to renegotiation by 50 U.S.C.A.App. § 1213(a)
See 50 U.S.C.A.App. § 1218
334 U.S. 742, 68 S. Ct. 1294, 92 L. Ed. 1694
The Court viewed that Act as a compilation of several statutes and amendments. Lichter v. United States, 334 U.S. 742, 755 n. 1, 68 S. Ct. 1294, 1301, 92 L. Ed. 2d 1694
Lichter, 334 U.S. 742, 755, 68 S. Ct. 1294, 1301, 92 L. Ed. 1694
See Lichter, 334 U.S. 742, 757-764 nn. 5, 6, and 7, 68 S. Ct. 1306, 92 L. Ed. 1694
Lichter, 334 U.S. 742, 765, 68 S. Ct. 1294, 92 L. Ed. 1694.
H.Rep. No. 7, 82d Cong., 1st Sess., p. 2 (1951)
Lichter, 334 U.S. 742, 788, 68 S. Ct. 1294, 1318
Lichter, 334 U.S. 742, 787, 68 S. Ct. 1294, 1317
50 U.S.C.A.App. § 1216(a) (6)
50 U.S.C.A.App. § 1218(a) (Supp.1966)