Transcripts For CSPAN3 Landmark Cases Supreme Court Landmark Case Youngstown Sheet And Tube... 20240712

In cooperation with the National Constitution center, exploring the human stories and constitutional dramas behind 12 Historic Supreme Court decisions. Quite often, and many of our most famous decisions, there once the court took that were quite unpopular. You lets go through a few cases that illustrate very dramatically and visually what it beans to live in a society of 310 different people who have helped stick together, because they believe in the rule of law. Good evening and welcome to landmark cases, our series that explores the people and stories behind some of the Supreme Courts most important decisions throughout our history. This week, the 1952 steel seizure case. Its officially known as youngstown steel and two Company Versus soy or. To get us started, we will start with a piece of vintage film from a documentary. It features president terri truman on april 8th 1952 as he announces to the nation his seizure of the nations Steel Industry. With american troops facing the enemy on the field of battle, i will not be living up to my oath of office if i fail to do whatever is required to provide them with weapons and ammunition they need for their survival. Therefore, i am taking to actions. , first im directing the secretary of commerce to take possession of the steel mills. The issue in this story is the power of the president and its limits. Not often is the president s authority directly attacked in a lawsuit. Thats what happened in the administration of harry as truman in the second year of the korean war, when he ordered the federal government to siege they legality of that action debated with intense feeling was finally resolved by the United States Supreme Court. This is the story of its ruling and the conflict that led to it, the story of a president s power contested. Thats what we will talk about tonight, the president s power and what the Supreme Court had to say about its limitations. Let me introduce you to our two guests for the next 90 minutes to talk about this steele seizure case. Michael gerhardt, a law professor and author of a book called power of precedent, forgotten president s, their untold constitutional legacy. William howell of the university of chicago. The author of numerous books on president ial powers, including thinking about the presidency and the privacy of power. For both of you, what are the very specific issues about the steele seizure case . What is at the heart of this . At a tired, this is a story and a case about president ial power and its limits during times of war. It puts before the central themes of the conditions under which president s in an emergency can do things that may not be expressly stated in the constitution, and the limits that congress has. What makes it a landmark case . The critical question the court is unable to avoid is the constitutionality of the president s seizure of the steel mills that in itself is a titanic with tremendous conflict which is really important at the time. What makes a historic or two things. One, its about structure. Its about the relationship between the president and congress. Most other cases are about, rights but structure also matters when it comes to making our leaders follow certain guidelines. This is also a language to talk about structure. This gives us important concepts we will talk about with separation of powers down the road and our language for talking about separation of powers is traced back to this case lets get to the background. This took place during the korean conflict which began when the north invaded south korea on june 25th, 1950. Its important that there was never a declaration of war. Why is that significant in the case as it unfolds . It comes in the aftermath of world war ii. Congress declared a war for the last time. What we have in this case is the Un National Security council coming forward and recommending calls for military action in the United States. Famously, truman calls this a war about Police Action in response to a query from a reporter. And this is very important, because it sets the framework for the discussion that will follow, and it opens up lots of opportunities for them to criticize the president in congress. It makes it harder for the president to walk this line between wanting to argue on behalf of deference and acquiescence by the adjoining branches of government, while also claiming that they shouldnt be interfering or meddling with his Constitutional Rights to wage war. There is an important legal distinction im understanding between the state of war and an emergency situation . There could be. Thats an issue in this case, whether this qualifies as an emergency in the absence of a declaration of war. One of the tricky things here for president truman is that he is backed into a corner. The more he talks about this as being war, it is less popular for him. The nation just came out of a horrible war. They are about to enter a Police Action that will cause thousands of lives. The more people become aware of, that it becomes harder for truman. So he has to figure out what will i emphasize publicly that will allow me to maintain popularity and power and still get done what i want to. It wasnt good by the time this first case rolls around. His Approval Ratings when he first came to office were off the charts. He was doing phenomenally well. They plummet rapidly in the aftermath of world war ii. He gets a bump up when he gets reelected in 1948, and a slight bump up when the war begins, up into the mid forties. By the time this case rolls around, his Approval Ratings are in the mid 20s. Thats a low point in the modern presidency we dont see those sorts of numbers until the tail end of bush in his second term. What about also the state of the economy at that point . It was fragile. It was expanding after world war ii. There was a tremendous amount of growth occurring, but one of the themes we will see played out is concerned that the war is going to disrupt this growth and lead to high inflation, so at the center of this case are concerns about price controls, wage controls, and to ensure that the economy as well functioning, which will matter both to keep the public happy and to ensure that the economy is funding the war and supporting troops. Another thing to keep in mind is this case wasnt about power. Its interesting to think about with harry truman, by the time this case rolls around, he is a lame duck. He is so unpopular that he cant run again. Yet, he is about to do something which is a tremendous exercise of authority, in spite of that low popularity. And he will try to get away with it. He announced in march that he wouldnt run again. He could have run again. A month later, he will do something that people today are amazed the president could try to do. What about his relationship with congress . Never good. laughs it is certainly not good at this point in time, either. He has a lot going on in the country, a lot going on with labor strikes going on and that spills over into this case. At the same time, he has a lot of difficulties within his party and with the other party as well. He and congress dont get along very well, he even vetoes a critical piece of legislation. But the veto is overwritten. Congress basically responds by overriding his veto. It is a very tense relationship and that may also shape his decisionmaking. Talk more about that. Harry truman himself was pro union. Did he see tafthartley as being anti union . Yes he did. Thats a reason why he both tried to veto it and would later and very reluctantly follow it, even as they applied in this case. Truman doesnt want to alienate the unions. Thats a whole other dimension, which is important in the context of this case. It will be very difficult to maintain his popularity in the unions while at the same time trying to figure out the Legal Authority that he will use. Interesting lee, he talked about failing to do the right thing. He doesnt talk about the law at all in that early statement. He is just trying to do the right thing here he is talking in basic political terms. This is an argument about expediency. Its about maintaining an ongoing war effort, and he is asking congress to step aside and recognize. He is asking both branches to step aside. We have a facebook comment. I will tell you how you can get in on this conversation. Posting on facebook already, jesse kill born, right look at what he did to the coal unions during this time as well. Some might also be interested in knowing he wanted to round up railroad strikers, drafting them into the military, and kill labor leaders that would not run the trains. In fact, did he get involved with other industries . Concerns about strikes have a long history in matters involving war. They were at the center of fdrs efforts to keep the economy in order. He goes out embassy just unions not to strike. But he gives congress authority to quash strikes to make sure that anything related to the war, which was just about everything in the domestic economy after oldworld to, would interrupt that effort. In the aftermath, we talk about tafthartley, republicans had two years where they got control of congress. One of the things they reacted to when they enact hardly is a massive influx of strikes that occurred in the aftermath of world war ii. So when truman was in power, he had every reason to worry about the introduction of strikes and the ways in which they impact the war. Something related to that is, roosevelt had a different set of Information Available to him. And when truman comes in, he is met with a different set of statutes, more restrictive in a sense than what roosevelt had to deal with. I mentioned you getting involved and that makes the program work. There are three ways you can do it. First of all, there is a conversation underway on facebook. Fine cspan on facebook and you will see a posting about landmark cases and join the conversation there. You can also tweet us. When you do, it is really important for you to use the hashtag landmark cases. That will allow us to sort through and get your comments to air here. Finally, you can call us and we would like to hear your voices. Here are two ways you can do, it depending on where you live in the country. Eastern and central time zones, two zero to seven for eight 900. Mountain and pacific time zones. We will begin taking calls in about ten minutes or so so you can get into it. Next up is another documentary and this is about youngstown, ohio and its importance to the nations steel production. We will learn more about the Steel Industry at that time and the impact that a strike could have on the nations economy and its war preparation. This is my hometown. Its called youngstown, and its in the state of ohio near the pennsylvania boundary. In youngstown, we make steel. We make steel and talk still. Look down any street in town and you will see the mill at the end of it. Theres 25 miles of them along the river, and today they are busy day and night, every eight hours a shift change. 15,000 ban on each shift. The valley, named for the mulroney river was pretty amazing, just one after the other you would see glass furnaces and the coaching operation, all of the factory buildings and it was hard to tell where one began and another ended. By the 1940s the company was one of the largest Steel Companies in the nation and the largest employer in the state of ohio. According to the 1950 census, there were in the mahoney valley about 400,000 people. Of that, 70,000 worked in steel or a related industry. Of that 70, 000, 40,000 worked in basic steel production. Certainly, it is important because you need to manufacture munitions in that sort of thing for the proverbial hot war. The korean war was a hot war. They needed steel for munitions, tanks, gps, all of those things that you needed in the Second World War as well. So if the Steel Industry went on an industry wide, strike that would be a problem. It is basic to the things that an army and navy need to fight a war. Gentlemen, lets set the stage for what happened that actually caused the Steel Workers to want to strike. What are the conditions . It was the view of the laborers that the industry was making a tremendous amount of money and that money wasnt being directed towards them. There were calls for wage increases. And they were making money because of war production . In no small part. The Steel Industry was operating nearly a capacity at this time, a tremendous amount of steel. So the workers thought they were due for an increase in wages, but this was a time when the government was involved in setting wages and in setting prices. So this will be a fight between not two parties, but three. And the government will have an Important Role to play in balancing whether or not, deciding whether or not there should be a response and an increase in the price of steel to cover the cost associated with it. There was an institution established called the wage stabilization board. What was its role in this case . Truman will try to use it to his advantage. Truman basically gets a deal, so to speak, and putting forth to the board wage demands from the unions. The problem is he cant get the price at the level that he wants and it ends up being that Steel Companies want Something Like 12 or 13 dollars a ton, and they cant get anywhere close to that. The price stabilization there, they wont go anywhere near that. So it creates a problem. You cant get the companies and the unions to arrive at any kind of a deal. You can only get something that looks much more favorable to the unions. Truman realizes this and its a problem. You have these two unions and each has charged with a different function and this was done on purpose and part to ensure that they wouldnt be working together, because the whole point is to tamp down inflation. You dont want wages to increase and prices to increase and for it to escalate. But it makes for a mess in trying to handle the negotiations. So in the late months of 1951, this is all starting to percolate. Harry truman, it seems, would have several options to exercise other than seizure. He could have asked congress for its endorsement. He could have invoked taft partly. He also could have turned it over, which he, did to this wage stabilization board and lived by what it said. All of those were options available, and as the year ended, he was talking to the public and it seemed like other things were on the table except for seizure. For sure. The union comes out and on november 1st, 1951 and threatens and announces which they had to do under tafthartley, a set of restrictions on the ability of unions to strike. They come out on november 1st, saying we are planning to strike. And then there is a cooling off period . Exactly. December 31st, truman announces that he will go to the wage stabilization board and seek their council on what the increase and wage ought to be. The union then voluntarily steps aside and backs off and delays the strike, which allows for an additional cooling off period. But it gets hot pretty quickly, just as soon as the wage stabilization board comes forward with these recommendations. Bring us up today to march and april of the year when this really becomes the decision to seize the steel mills. What happens . Whats the tiktok . The tiktok is that march 20th, the stabilization board comes forward and makes recommendations, including an increase of wages at 12 and a half cents that will be back dated to january 1st, and then subsequently increases and fringe Wage Benefits as well that will be given. Predictions vary, but it seems like it will cost about 26 cents per worker, per hour to the industry. Crucially, there is also than a union shock. That is an important thing that the union really cares about. And management pivots quickly and says, we cant possibly cover this. We cant possibly incur these cost without the substantial increase in price which will allow us to do so. So what happens . There is negotiations that go back and forth between march 20th and august 8th. April, it you mean. Thats right. And they fail. The president is hoping they will come to a voluntary agreement. They fail and the, as we, saw truman announces in april he will siege. April 4th, the talks collapsed. April 8th, harry truman goes to the public and announces he will do this. What do we know from Historical Records about trumans advisers . Was he acting on his own accord for a center of righteousness . He is getting advice and its not all uniform. In a, sense a lot of lawyers spend a lot of time on this. The defense department, justice department, white house, they are looking at every avenue we just talked about. They are trying to figure out which, if any of those statutes talked about provides the means by which the president didnt take action and control over the operation of the steel mills. Almost won by, one these get knocked down. Tafthartley ends up being the one that comes back around most. Some others get dismissed because they seem to imply much more narrowly to certain stances involving condemnation that the president wants to have. Other than the fact that the president hates tafthartley, he has already used it before. So its like he is using these other mechanisms. There is also the cooling off period. He doesnt feel like he can use that either. The legal arguments are battling against each other and almost knocking each other out. There is also economist advisories as well. They are coming in and suggesting that the industry can cover these costs. He is getting a device that is telling him, you can push through these wages and you ought to take a harder stance against management then management would, like which is part of the reason why they are at loggerheads and we end up seeing the takeover. The Union Announces it will strike on april 9th. On april 8th, the night before, harry truman goes to address the nation. Lets watch. Though most people dont realize, at the Steel Industry has never been so profitable as it is today. At least not since the profiteering days of world war one and, yet in the face of these facts, these Steel Companies are now saying they ought to have a price increase of 12 dollars a ton, giving them a profit of 26 or 27 dollars a ton. Thats about the most outrageous thing i ever heard of. They not only want to raise prices to govern any wage increase. They want to double their money on the deal. You may think this steel dispute doesnt affect you. You may think it is just a matter between the government and the few greedy companies. But it isnt. If we granted the outrageous prices the Steel Industry wants, we would scuttle the whole price control program, and that comes pretty close to home. For both of, you what are you hearing the president doing and making the case to the public here and how it figured into the case we will discuss . He is shaming management. Right . He is saying, these are a bunch of profiteers who are using this dispute as an opportunity to extract and to price gouge. And in the background of this is a war. And its a careful line that he is trying to draw thats not worth Police Action. Yet, troops are fighting and dying on the front lines and this industry is central to maintaining the war effort. And what is management doing . They are being unreasonable. Of course, this is largely a political move. There is a bit of a divide here between the legal arguments and the political arguments. He has to make an argument to the American People and its designed to cast blame on whats happening with management. You are forcing us into this situation and a crisis that you are going to make worse. Therefore, options for dealing with it are few and far between. It seems like the Steel Company lawyers were well prepared for this because they move quickly. What did they do . Before the evening is done, they get the help of a judge in the District Of Columbia to get a restraining order in to stop the fight. The judge says i want to do that. So it happens that quickly. They were knocking on the judges door that night and the case hearing was the next day. They got right in. You have trumans lawyers arguing about the need for expediency and restraint on the part of the judiciary so that we contend to this problem. And we are talking about management declaring a gross abuse of power. We will talk about arguments made at this level of the court and how the impact of the publics perception of the case in the couple minutes. Lets start with taking some your phone calls. David is watching us in tulsa. Hi, david. You are on the air. I would like to ask a question. Did the cold war motivate truman in any way in his decisions . Did it have an effect upon the Supreme Court as well . Yes. The cold war was definitely a factor. Let me just mention one aspect of it. This is also in the mccarthy area. There is a lot of concern about communists and government. Theres a tremendous amount of anti communism fervor out there. And this has gotten america into this military flight and the president will manage it as well. So he is clearly concerned with trying to stop the spread of communism. Congressional leaders are saying its a problem. This is all stuff he is trying to deal with. And in many ways, the korean war was a proxy war with the soviet union. You have the soviet union and china in the background. And this is the beginning of the cold war. This is just now beginning to be worked out. A viewer on twitter asked about the hot war. He asked do you think that the war was used as leverage by the Steel Industry to get what they want . The korean war. Was the war itself . They were certainly producing at really high levels because of the war. You dont hear truman. If anyone made that argument, it would be truman. You dont see him say that necessarily, but rather they are using this showdown. But let me just say. Because of the war, labor thinks management is making a lot of money which is a means for higher wages. Patrick is watching this. You are on the air, patrick. Good evening. I just briefly wanted to refer quickly to remarks that were on last week. As Justice Scalia said, Something Like this could happen again. Let me just fast forward now to Ronald Reagan replacing air Traffic Controller with military controllers because they went on strike, albeit the air Traffic Controllers i believe or federal employees. My question now is, with the passage of the war powers act and even further the patriot act, do you see any problem or any issues with an executive order now by the president to do something similar . We with regards to the war powers resolution, president s dont abide by it at all except maybe in paying lip service. It doesnt really make an effect on what they do otherwise. In terms of whether or not a president can do Something Like this, something extreme, i think it depends on context. The other thing we could learn about this case is the extent to which the president s actions turn out to be unpopular. If the president were to do something and it were popular, thats a different dynamic. I think with truman, his popularity is plummeting through this and thats why i think we have to at least acknowledge that as one of the arguable constraints happening. The political economy about how we go to war has also changed in important ways. The Steel Industry has a level of independence that the military industrialized sector today does not. There is a level much more regiment it between defenses and the production of munitions today than there were 50 or 60 years ago. We should say, there is plenty of disputes about how president s use their war powers at home. We havent been talking about the nationalization of that industry throughout this. It is in dan barry, connecticut. I, head. Truman lost the case about the steele. How did that come about and did the case have an indirect . We dont want you to get too far ahead of us. Can you tell us anything else, john . It is coming. It does get resolved. Stay with. Yes i guess that is the main message here. On the 50th anniversary of the steele seizure case, University Law school and the Harry Truman Library did a retrospective. They interviewed two of the clerks to Justice Jackson, one of them ended up having quite an interesting legal career himself. Next, we will see a bit of an oral history of this case with bill rehnquist who became the chief justice of the United States, but at the time in 1952 was a clerk to Justice Jackson. He talks about where we are in the story right now and the lower level federal Court Hearing this case and the argument that Harry Trumans representatives made. Lets listen. The government made some extraordinary claims at the very beginning in the District Court that the president had all the authority that george the third had. You can imagine the press outcry about this. It just made headlines. And it gave a negative aspect. The government abandon that argument long before it got to the Supreme Court, but it got the government off on the wrong foot. And there was an ambivalence about the korean war at that point. Wasnt . Theyre very much so. People were fighting and dying in korea but very few sacrifices called for on the home front. I world war ii, you had 14 Million People under arms, but a lot of things restricted on the home front. The korean war, you just didnt have those restrictions on the home front. There was a real ambivalence as you say. With all of the Legal Counsel that the president has gotten before, how did they get off on such a bad foot in the court . The government never fully gets out of this mess. He tries to make the argument but then he gets into a discussion with the district judge, in which the district judge does a good job cross examining alter itch and it ends up in the paper because all jewish basically answers yes, this is not limited. Or its up to the executive to determine the emergency and when it ends. The governments lawyers saying thats all right. The discussion keeps coming back to. That where is the limit on the president s authority, inherent or otherwise, to be able to determine and emergency anti use extraordinary powers during it . Lets get that district judges name on the air. It was walter bastion. Bastion is the first person what do you want to say about this part of the process . The president s lawyers are making a case on constitutional grounds. And for all the time that fdr had intervened during strikes and taken over industries, which he had done dozens of times, and the courts and affirmed those actions, they always affirmed them with regards to statutory reforms. They never recognize the president s Constitutional Authority to nationalize an industry. So from the getgo there is a sense that trumans lawyers are overplaying their hand the outcome of this legal proceeding as . What it doesnt go well for truman. It is shut down in no Uncertain Terms. This was all being asked during a preliminary injunction. There was a sense that what was on stake is can we put this on hold right now . The management was concerned about whether or not the true mid ministration was going to increase wages, change the wage terms of employment for the workers while holding. Rather than simply making the case basis of irreparable damage, which is whats at stake and asking for the lifting of a preliminary injunction, the district judge goes all the way and says this is legal through and through. We should shut this down. Its a real tactical mistake. I think the judge was going to get to that issue one way or another. They criticize the government for not making the more narrow argument in the courts below which we just went through, which is just to say the Steel Industry is not entitled to preliminary junctions. What happened next legally . How did it get from this level to the Supreme Court . It gets there fast. Thats another aspect of this case. It ends up in front of the u. S. Court of appeals they end up staying with the judges order. Then they expedite the case. It is there in very short order, faster than the typical case. He and his fellow clerks went over and part of the argument, having a feeling this case might be coming to them at some point. You say its unusual but the court responded very quickly. What makes this particularly unusual . The circumstances we have been talking about. There are boots on the ground in korea. Thats not lost on anybody. The Steel Industry is real concerned about losing control over business. No matter which way you look, everybody wants this done. And while it is happening, the steel is continuing to be produced. Nothing has happened to production during this . The whole argument is that we cannot stand for an interruption in the flow of steel, because it will lead to an inability to produce the tanks and munitions and planes that are needed to wage the war path is watching in milton, washington. What is your question . Hi pat. I know that harry truman was not a College Educated president. I think he was the only one. Lincoln as well. He certainly was not an attorney. Did this have any impact on his thinking . I dont know. I dont mean to sound snobby. I have admired him. I am an old lady and he was the president when i was, you know, and i think he was a pretty good guy. I understand he was not a College Educated man and i wonder, does this have the impact . Weve got a number of president s without formal education who were sharp people. I think president truman is perfectly sharp and intelligent. I dont think this happens because he doesnt understand the issues or is not sophisticated. I think this turns out to be a quandary for him and ultimately a failure because he does fervently believe he is right. Thats what he said in the talent address he believes he is right a president , no matter what the level of education and he is engaging this in pragmatic terms. He is concerned about an ongoing war that he is trying to manage and he is trying to see a way forward. He is looking for the tool that to him make sense. Before we get to the case with the Supreme Court itself in 1952, it was an interesting institution. Give us the framework of the court at that time . Who were the overall political appointees that were made when this case went to the court . This was an interesting point in time. There are nine democrats on the court. Nine of them were appointed by roosevelt, five by truman. He also appointed the last person ever to be a democratic appointee for chief justice, frank vincent. This is the Vincent Court. The Vincent Court has nine really strong people, other than the chief justice. Its a very strong intellectual and opinionated and some have vinsons has to keep this crew together as best as he can. Vinson he is largely failing to keep them together. He doesnt have a consensus. The descriptions of the court suggest it was torn by factions. Was it . It certainly was, as was the democratic party. There are southern conservative democrats and more liberal, and many of these people were appointed with, under fdr with an eye towards their support for new deal legislation, the extent to which that carries over into the unified support today and a host of challenges isnt altogether clear. We see the emergence of disagreements after that. I have particularly read there was a justice black section and a Felix Frankfurter faction . For that matter, almost everything was a different personality. When you start zeroing in on the court, when you find out they are all democrats, they dont all necessarily like each other. They dont necessarily all respect each other. In appointing his old friend vinson as chief justice, i dont think black and jackson forgot that. So there is politics here, and also the fact that all of these justices were appointed because of their support for the new deal. What works now may not be relevant ten years down the road, now this group of democrats are disagreeing about all sorts of things. And truman misses a lot of this. These were democratic appointees and they served in this administration and he has a conversation with one of them. The chief justice and president were actually talking about this . There is a suggestion that they had a conversation. It cannot be disproved. They arent alive today and theres no record. But there is a suggestion which is credible because vincent is advising truman on all sorts of things. There is one suggestion, one allegation that truman talks to vinson about, in person or in phone or, how and vinson tells him we will side with you. Would that happen today . For people watching this, do they know there might be conversations, right now we have a president and chief justice of different parties, but could you see the president picking up a phone and getting a sense of where things are going . We have different ethical rules and different conventions as opposed to then. Assuming those ethical rules were followed, i think the answer is no. Its not clear that they need to get on the phone today. Because people would have a better chance of what the decisions would be . Loyal democrats to the bench would be loyal conservatives. There is one other name of a justice that i want to tell people about because its interesting, and that is tom clark who had been Harry Trumans attorney general. Similar to what was going on in the past, clarkson ends up not being popular with truman, basically. Truman figures he has clark in his pocket and is going to be really angry at the court but i think he will be particularly angry and cautious. Years later, his son ramsey clark was named attorney general by lyndon johnson. Correct . That is outside of my area. Give us a minute. It was interesting to point out that there is a family legacy there we are going to learn a little bit more about this, but i want to get more questions. Next is chris watching in brooklyn. You are on the air. Thank you for cspan and for this series. One of the things people think about with this case is there were a lot of other options other than seizing steel mills. There were a dozen or so governors involved in a lot of local politics, especially as harry truman was not the gravitas that fdr was. Korea was not a prepared war truman was just not that strong of a president going into this. Your comments are appreciated. Truman is playing from a place of weakness. That is for sure, precisely the things you point to reflect that. He had a number of drawing the authority that he wanted none of them provided a Clear Pathway to take the actions that he wanted to take, which is why he is offering a set of arguments that are a mix of Statutory Authority and also the relevance of past practices. He wants to say what i am doing is not breaking historical precedent. The court should recognize the legality of it. Next is a comment from virginia. Thank you for taking my call. I am calling from a different perspective, and engineering point of view. I dont know if you understand the difficulties faced by any time there is a strike or shut down. It would take several weeks to shut down a steel mill, and probably several weeks to start it back up. Timing, you cant just turn off the switch and walk away from a steel mill. You have to do a lot to protect the equipment and enable you to open backup. Thats all. Thank you for having that dimension. That explains the delay between april 4th and april 8th. The strike is about to happen four days later and there are delays. Steve is in cloverdale, virginia. Steve, you are on. Thank you all so much for taking my call. At the same time the United Nations is a new body, if we had outside the United States interest and influence in the decisions of not just truman but the government and how that may have played a role like doing things as the secretary general in congo and this kind of colonial rule of things that is falling apart and this history was progressing and from the u. S. And the industry it is kind of just the government being used by business. Even though i know he was more against business. Outside interests i guess is my question, that may have influenced our government . Thank you. We appreciate it. I dont think any evidence suggests that somehow what truman was doing was acting at the behest of the United Nations. Interestingly, when the United Nations charter was signed, it was signed with the promise that when the nation goes to war, domestic constitutional obligations remain in place. Some of the controversy in this particular war and truman calling it a Police Action rather than recognizing it as a war and seeking do authorization, rather pointing to the un has justification is more now the oral argument was set for may 12th, 1952 about a month after the seizure. They set aside five hours for oral arguments. Today, the typical or argument is one hour. Can you comment on five . That is a huge sign and it tells everybody this is a case. I should also know that the very announcement of a short period of arguments through the lower courts in the Supreme Court doesnt give the government a lot of time to think of new arguments. They will recycle some things, including the arguments about the basic authority the president has. Here that will be one problem in the sense that the government has got. But i think he fact is also going to allow the court to give this case, really tell the American People, we know it is an important case. We will expedite it and give it a real authority. A number of attorneys took part in the argument for five hours. I want to read the names. John davis was an attorney for the Steel Companies. Philip perlman was the u. S. Solicitor general. Arthur goldberg, a name that will be familiar to summon history. United Steel Workers of america general counsel. Clifford bryan and harold highs, attorneys for the political brotherhood of engineers. Who in that list do you want to comment on . That is a stellar list. You have some of the greatest lawyers in a generation. He was also the solicitor general of the United States before this. He argued one of our earlier cases. Yes, and he will argue a big case you will be talking about soon as well, brown. So davis is one of the great lawyers in this generation he is the first name of the famous law firm, davis polk in new york city the Steel Industry had had multiple lawyers up until this point they were realizing that having multiple lawyers wasnt helping them necessarily. So they get davis to consolidate arguments. He comes in and he is thought to be an excellent advocate for the case. He happens to be the first jewish solicitor of the United States and his acting attorney general at the time. Goldberg has a very short argument. He thought the most baffling case was goldbergs argument, which overshadows him overtime. One viewer watching tweeted about john w. Davis surf, who won only 29 of the popular vote as a democratic candidate in 1924. He had also been in congress i think. A very distinguished gentleman. And a veteran of the Supreme Court barr. He is going to get up and he is not going to be question very much by the justices in spite, of that long period of time. That is the sense of our next video. We will return to that oral argument with excuse me that oral history with former chief chest us bill rehnquist. He is interviewed by bill gore im lee, the head of the law school at to kane university. Lets listen to william rehnquist. The fact that john davis argued for over an hour, and i think was asked only one question. He had a style of advocacy that you dont hear nowadays, but it was very impressive. And, then solicitor general perlman got a whole bunch of questions from the court. The clerks were not president of the conference, but george, my coclerk and i, were dying to find out what happened as i suspect the other clerks were too. So we followed Justice Jackson into his office when we got back, just as we always did he would tell us. He said boys, the president got licked. The president got linked and the leading with the opinion by black, which was affirming in no Uncertain Terms trumans case. In many ways, it constituted a reapplication of Supreme Court rules with a sweeping indictment. Other opinions will break for different reasons, but it is a real blow for truman. I want to ask about court procedure. We always hear about the Supreme Court that conferences no aides can go into the room when the justices are in conference. Here we have Justice Jackson going right out and talking to his clerks about what happened in that room is that common . Thats pretty common. This is a big case and im sure the other justices are doing the same thing, telling clerks what happened. The fact that black announces this decision is going to be yet another blow to truman. They served together in the United States senate and were friendly, or so truman thought truman confused friendship with agreement. And that will be one of the many blows. So the very specific to questions that were before the court first of all, is it appropriate for the court to make a final determination on the constitutionality of the president s actions when the cases at the preliminary injunction states . So its a Court Authority question. Answer to that is . The answers. Yes and that is the critical answer here. That in itself is historic. This is thought to be the first great sfrags of powers conflict in the 20th century. Probably the biggest lost that a president has had up to this time. Keep in mind not too long before the Roosevelt Administration won a victory in the korematsu case. Now the president is going to lose big time. Maybe theres a lesson here. Maybe the court has began to think weve given the president too much slack. Black has a very distinct viewpoint. When it comes to constitutional law and separation of powers. I he believes theres legislative power, executive pow western the taking of property is legislative and the president doesnt have that power, easy case, its over. And question number two is at the heart of what weve been talking about. Was the president acting within his constitutional power when he issued an order directing the commerce secretary to take possession of an operate list of the steel mills and the course said . No. The president has no right to behave in the way he did and he likes Statutory Authority to intervene as he did. It is worth noting that in addition to recognizing a host of statutory options available to the president including taft heartily, black goes back and notes that when the congress was enacts taft heartily, they voted down that amendment. So you have this moment that black reaches back to in the legislative history of tafthartley to point out in no Uncertain Terms at heat like the will of congress behind that. The nuances of that six three decision. First lets hear from paul in white stone, new york. Hi, paul. Yes. Let me stand a little bit away. My question is this. Can you hear me . Yes. How do you feel management getting away with claiming that they could not afford to give the Steel Workers a raise . I will stop you there because for future collars, make sure your audio is unmuted so we dont get the delay from the satellite. This was in many ways a political argument. This is where the management is engaging in a political fight as its truman. Thats probably feature not properly featured in the court case itself. Could not seize heres the six three decision and the majority where justices hugo black. He looks frankfort, or william oh douglas, robert jackson, Harold Burton and tom clark. And the minority, chief Justin Vincent voted justices stanley reid and sherman mint. And were going to return to another earl argument. This is from one of the other clerks, his name is george, and an exchange between justices jackson and clark about their decision in this case. Lets listen. After they announced the decision at that time, at the time clark sat on one side of jackson, probably on the left, and tom clark announced his concurrence and i dont remember whether he ruled the opinion or not. The jackson leaned over to him and whispered, im glad to see that youve decided to be a judge, tom. Now jackson told me that. You reacted when you heard that. It was very interesting, yes. And of course jackson is talking about this from his own experience. He was an attorney general and roosevelt during which time he made some arguments very similar to those he is about to reject in this case. Same thing happened in korematsu. And for jackson it was very important to recognize a distinction between how he looked at the world as a political appointee attorney general and how he looked at the world as a judge. Clark had been attorney general and now hes it justice, and therefore he could think differently about the merits of the issue. That is what jackson said. When jackson was attorney general he was also operating at a different time. This is pretafthartley and in the midst of the war. Part of what hes going to justify this is because things have changed. As you said, just as you go black with the majority of the decision. There were also a number of written concurrence and in the end, does that middle interpretation of the case . It ends up not meddling it too much, because there is one concurrence and it will be the concurrence of robert jackson. Jackson does not serve on the court very long. He unfortunately dies in the early fifties. But one of the great distinctions he is going to have in the short time that he spends on the court is hes thought to be the greatest writer perhaps the court has ever seen. His concurrence is not just well written, but it puts together a framework that is going to become lands in a sense. Because that framework is so important, we are going to take a minute and we to have established three scenarios for executive action and how much power a president would have under those to withstand that legal challenges. As our guests have said, these have become the benchmarks upon which future executive actions have been judged. Let us look at them. First of all he writes in his concurrence, when the president acts to express or implied authorization of congress, his authority is at its maximum. A second scenario, when the president acts an absence of a congressional grant or earth already he can rely only up on his own independent powers, but there is a zone of twilight and those words become important, that he and congress may have concurrent authority. And the third scenario, when the president takes measures incompatible with the expressed or applied will of congress, his power is that its lowest. What is so important about that framework . Theres a lot that is important. Let me give another background detail. Jackson has also returned to the court at this point after having served as chief prosecutor. He has gone through world war ii and he experienced with tyrants. And with people that have no bounds or boundaries on their power. He is going to have a line in here, the power of the sort has no beginning or end. My guess it may have a little bit to do with his own personal experience, having to deal with the horrible wrongs committed by people that are not electoral lord lee responsible. But in this context, what is important here is the framework is actually going to lead us to be able to look at any given situation, particularly in the realm of Foreign Affairs where the president is acting and react saying, has congress spoken . Has it authorized this or not . Know what congress has said or otherize what will help us evaluate the strength of the Constitutional Foundation for the president to act. And he is scaling back from blacks formalism by recognizing the value of practice. He is going to put this case in that third category where congress plainly has spoken against the power that truman claims to have. In the zone of twilight he recognizes that when president s ask the congressional silence may invite, enable, maybe not invite, Legal Authority to follow. The president can continue acting in this particular domain. Hes sensitive to the imperatives of war, practiced, allegations of authority, and the politics surrounding them in ways that blacks was not. Historical practice has some relevance here. That is significant. It gives rise to a methodology as jackson simplifies this concurrence. We call functional is amend balancing. It is what youre seeing in the jackson case. Now its at the time where its most relevant. Joshua asks us, if congress had declared war with president truman have the Legal Authority to have seized the steel mills . Its not clear that it would follow. Nonetheless, you see the justice is looking critically and skeptic skeptically upon trumans claims that one that there really would be an emergency the production of steel halted. That would interrupt in an important when the ability of the nation to continue the coronation of the war effort. Hes asking them to step aside and recognize that he and he alone has this obligation. Asking both branches really to step aside. We have facebook comment and ill tell you at home in a minute how you can be involved in this. Already posting on facebook, jesse kil rs roy says look what did he to the coal unions during this time as well. Some might be interested in he wanted to round you have railroad strikers and killing labor leaders who wouldnot run the trains. He would get involved with other industries . Concerns with strikes have a lot history in matters involving war. They were at the center of fdrs efforts to keep the economy in order. He comes to agreement is that goes out and beseeches them not to strike. He ensures that anything related to the war quhazwhich was just about everything wouldnt interrupt that effort. And in the aftermath, when we were talking about 1948, republicans this two years where they got control of congress. One thing theyre reacting to in tast hartley is this massive influx of strikes that occurred in the aftermath of world war ii. And so when truman was in power, he had every reason to worry about the introduction of strikes and was and the ways in which they interrupt the war. One of them that is related to that is roosevelt had a different set of mechanisms available to him. Different things he can rely on to with authority. And then when truman comes in, hes going to end up with a different set of statutes. More restricted in a thats a real monument. Him second thing that is worth really stressing is as extraordinary eloquence and his ability to capture the language. Beautiful, really profound. Thats roughly about a week week ago, i heard Justice Scalia, he most admired robert jackson. It is quite remarkable given that ideologically theyre not necessarily from the same camp and just scully as a fine writer but saying look, i think theres nobody better than jackson. I think anybody whos interested should read the jackson for just how well they could cut through legal ease so to speak and get to the heart of the issues. Robert is in springfield new jersey. Yes, thank you. Since the youngstown case, in what cases have the Supreme Court cited the three tiered approach related by Justice Jackson and his contributors . Thank you we will talk a little more but we only have a few minutes left. Its going to get cited a lot. One thing i should note though is, this is part of what one might say is a particular key to the concurrence. The concurrence may not bind people to very much. That is to say, the framework is there and what it allows people to use their own judgment to determine what congress has said on this or not. And that may be a particularly significant aspect of. This it is influential, but it does not necessarily constrain very much. We will talk about. This how we characterize that zone of twilight is going to change over time and the president s ability to exercise authority and count on judicial backing is going to be come more capacious. Zone of twilight gives you a lot, doesnt it . A lot of latitude. Framework really, is expecting or depending on congress to use some of its judgment or authority. It is relying heavily on congress. Yes. One of the things that the court is saying is that we will not step in and do for you that which you will not do for yourself. We will reliably come down. Another robert, this one, from new york. Hi. My recollection is that the government took over the railroads during world war one. What is the difference between what occurred then and the decision that was made with the youngstown case . Well, its a very different war. This is a big part of it. One of the interesting important cases to cut out of the seizures that occurred is claiming the montgomery wart. It isnt just about railroads, but it is a claim that in total war where every dimension of the economy is implicated in the war effort, the case that we need, and uninterrupted flow of economic production, he is able to make the fdr is able to make again, in ways that truman falters in his limited constrained Police Action. A whole different set of statues are operating in the declaration of war, which is pertinent in the sense that it reflects what we just said, which is full engagement with the war effort. With the six three decision, the steel mills were returned to their private owners. Harry truman addressed the nation once again on this about a week after the Supreme Court decision. We will see that. Next we are also going to hear from ohio senator robert taft, which was the taft in tafthartley. Lets watch. Mr. Truman has refused to use the legislative means given him by congress to deal with the spy. For some reason, the president does not want to use the law, isnt there a reason why he should not . It can be used quickly. We recommend that the congress approach. I think it would be unwise, unfair, and quite possibly ineffective. The issue is fairly up to you, gentleman of the congress. I hope the congress will meet it by enacting fair and effective legislation. That was june 10th, 1952. So whats your reaction to what you just heard there . Well of course there is the basic political agreement that disagreement that the two men who. But its also radical constitution. I think tafthartley would have to be twisted to some extent really apply to this particular circumstance. It was not clear that it applied to strikes or likely bring strikes that. All i should say strikes, particularly of an industry like. This but maybe more importantly, i think what human is saying is, tafthartley would have constrain him so much. Not just the showing it would have made, the reduced amount of time for the cooling off, those sorts of things. Truman with was looking for was a statute that would have given a lot more authority to the executive than tafthartley did. Tafthartley is buying him 80 days, thats. It and he got 80 days from the unions voluntarily giving it up. After the Supreme Court decision, the Steel Workers did go out on strike. Putting a stop to production in a time of war and iran are next video we will watch the impact of. That the 1952 steel strike in youngstown was actually part of a nationwide labor stoppage. The companies that operated plants in young stone, such as youngstown sheet and tube Republic Steel and u. S. Steel also had plants in a number of other locations. From the east coast through the industrial midwest, all would have stopped work at the same time as those in young stone. So here, we see picketers, members of a local union, 21 63, which represented workers and the hot end of youngstown sheet and tunes camel works and they are playing cards. Picketing duty for active Union Members was an important feature of lengthy strikes, not necessarily in order to prevent replace workers from entering the plant because the Steel Companies did not attempt to operate their plants during strikes during this period. But as an expression of Union Solidarity to show their support for the decisions that had been taken by the leadership that resulted in work stoppages of considerable length. The steel worker strike of 1952 included over 500,000 members who were out for more than seven weeks. This represented the longest and costliest strike in collective bargaining in the Steel Industry up until that time. So what was the impact and how is it resolved . The strike goes on for about 50 days. There is not a whole lot of evidence that it has the kind of bearing on the war effort that truman claimed that it would. That the skepticism raised by those who said look, truman, youre overplaying your case with regard to the need for expediency and just how urgent everything is. It is borne out. During the 50day period, Congress Tries to come forward and hold hearings and suggest are going to pass laws but they never get around to it. Eventually, Labor Management comes to terms with the wage increase and change and price. That doesnt look especially different from the terms that were being debated four to five months prior. We want to talk about the impact on harry truman. There are some great harry truman stories about this. Greg tells us, one of them is it true that truman said to justice black, hugo i dont care for your law but collie this bourbon is good . It seems to be reported in a lot of places i have to assume thats. True black arranges for a dinner for truman to join the court. Black understands that truman is angry and miffed. He is trying to find a way to bring them to gather. Truman does say that to black and as far as we can tell, truman is pretty forgiving to most of the justices but as we said before, hes going to save as special epitaph for tom clark. Once again, were going to return to george and back and his neck reads of that dinner and alex entry, virginia hosted by justice like that harry truman attended. Just as black used to have a dinner for the Supreme Court over at his home in alexandria after the close of the recession. And this particular evening, all of the justices were there and they had dinner. And the president used to come. President truman was there. And they got to talking, evidently, about the steele seizure case. And truman said to them, i almost came up to argue that case myself. And Justice Douglas leaned over and kept him on the knee and said, why didnt you do it . Happily, he didnt. He didnt. But this case rankled harry truman for the rest of his life. We have a 1961 letter from truman to Justice Tom Clark in which he writes, all of you are very kind to me and i was glad to have the chance to discuss various things that had taken place in the past, particularly justice blacks comments about my statement on the fact that the decision of the court in the steele case was in line with the dred scott decision. I still think that was true. He had his principles and again we can disagree with. Them when might think that he was not correct to think this way. But he believed in what he was doing. And so one can judge him on that basis. But im not sure arguing the case would make any difference at all in the Supreme Court. I think that the justices fully understood that their friendships with him. But those friendships did not shape the outcome. And youngstown to the state is held an incredibly high regard. The Supreme Court justices, the nominees, the last three or four, in the confirmation hearings regularly come back and extolling the virtues, in particular of jacksons concurring opinion. It is pointed to again and again in cases that have followed senses. Certain things Supreme Court nominees have to say is a basic thing and to get the job and one of them is they agree with jackson and youngstown. One of our viewers post on twitter stating, the clip from chief Justice Roberts confirmation hearing stating the same youngstown framework. The man currently leading the court. Our last couple of minutes we are going to talk about the impact today. That is a good starting point. First, lets hear from bob in harrisburg, pennsylvania. Hi, bob. Good evening. Thank you for taking my question. I would like to question mr. Howl. And 1902 there was a coal strike in the United States. It started in the summer and lasted into the autumn. In october of 1902, Teddy Roosevelt which was president summoned the head of the mineworkers and the owners of the coal mines to the white house, and he basically threatened the mine owners to seize the mines if they dont compromise more. My question to mr. Howell is, is there any historical evidence to suggest that president truman and his advisers were behind it in their behavior by the stance of Teddy Roosevelt in 1902 . That is a great question. I honestly do not know. Truman was regularly and his advisers, were regularly invited both sides to the white house to hash out the terms of a possible settlement. But to the extent that he was drawing on Teddy Roosevelt example, i simply do not know. It is a great question. Truman does site and some of his defenses of his actions, he does cite lincolns suspension of the heaviest corpus. He cites the louisiana purchase. I think there are a few things that he does cite along the way as sort of what we call a unilateral president ial actions, which were in fact he thought were similar to what he had done. Fred is in chicago. What is your question . My question is what that last person mentioned if you would speak to the concurring opinion by justice frankfurter who presented a history of executives taking over various industries. For instance, during lincolns administration, lincolns office took over all the telegraph Company Lines emanating out of washington, d. C. Two other parts of the country. Thats the first. One i would like to have you speak to that concurring opinion of justice frankfurter. And secondly, how many of the justices in 1950 were appointed by republicans . Where they all appointed by democrats, such as Frank Roosevelt and harry truman . Is to the latter question. It is a famous concurrence as well. One thing to note at the outset is, besides black, everybody else is going to agree that historical practices has some real events. What frankfurter is going to say is, he thinks the principal way which is if there is a longstanding unbroken tradition or practice of doing something. In his view, there was not a longstanding, unbroken practice of president s doing this kind of thing. In the meantime, you have congress intervening. You have very different wars that are pointed to buy the truman administration. The landscape is changing in the after world war ii. Weve talked about this as a president ial power. One conservative bloc that i was reading about this suggested that the fragmented opinions have left the government seizure of private property vulnerable legally. I dont know about that. I think that this is this is so contextual. This depends so much on what we have been saying. The network of statutes that applied then and the circumstances that the president faced. Taking this clause typically deals with condemnation and that is a whole separate body of law. But the president did not he explicitly rejected condemnation as an alternative in the situation. You mention that the citations of this case in subsequent opinions are too numerous for us to mention. We picked a couple just so folks can see some of the very recognizable cases where the youngstown steel seizure case has been cited. They include United States versus nixon in 1974 which was of course about president nixons executive power. In 1997 it was cited in the clinton v. Jones case before the Supreme Court. In 2004, handy versus rumsfeld also cited the decision and this case, the concurring opinion, i believe jacksons concurring opinion. 2014, the National Labor Relations Board versus canning, which was a recess appointments case. I will show one more piece of video and we will wrap this all up. Talking about the fight between congress and the president on who has authority. Let us bring that to the modern age. We have the opportunity to interview theme members of congress in the judiciary committees for the series. Next you will see senator leahy on the use of executive power by president s. Lets watch. Any president has used executive power. The easy answer is congress doesnt like, it passed a law. I like to see the court step more and make decisions like that when congress or the private sector challenges the power of the executive branch. We have a president today who came to the congress as president s do with his long list of things. Every president does that. That they would liked congress to an act, changed from policies. But he did Something Different that i had never seen before. At the end of that he said, and if you dont do it, i will. Gentlemen, comments from both of you . Well i think, again, jacksons concurrence is putting congress on notice to say that, look, we will most reliably stand with you when you speak clearly about what appropriate boundaries are of executive authority. When you dont speak and when theres an unbroken chain of historical arent president s, there is room for president s to maneuver. And president certainly have. So this case is sometimes recognized, often recognized as a moment when the judiciary step in and check the wartime president. In that sense, it appears to be of big importance, that the primary way in which it tends to be invoked is again, by reference to a framework, a way of thinking. When you think about if president s ability to exercise power and exercise unilateral power by reference to a will of congress, that is the incredibly nebulous. Very hard to navigate. President s can find lots of opportunity to act. You gave a stream of opinions in which it was cited and the court went on to rule against the executive. But there are other cases in which the court cited it and upheld with the executive has done. I might just say, professor howell has written brilliantly about the fact that it is much harder for the congress to act and it is for the president to act. If we are left with a framework that depends on congress acting, we have a problem. Congress has a problem. It will never be able to act as quickly or efficiently or as clearly as the president is, especially in times of emergency. As we are getting toward the end of the program, i want to tell you about some upcoming cases. We have 12 altogether. We will be at this until the middle of december doing life programs, and then it will of course be aired on cspan. It will be available for you to watch on our website. If you have been watching, you know that we have published a book, a collection of pieces that are backgrounds to these cases, written by tony murrow who has been covering the court for 30 years. It is called landmark cases. Available for eight dollars and 95 cents. If you go to cspan dot or work, search landmark cases. Find out how to order it and will get it to really quickly so you can have it for the rest of the series and then you can also seem some of the background on the earlier cases that we have done. That is here from larry in angle would, colorado. Larry, you are on. Good evening. Another wonderful episode. I wondered if in these perennial battles between congress, legislative judicial and executive branch, where are we at at it today . There is an ebbed and flowed situation. Who holds the power right now and what determines aside from you who designates the justice, how these things are going to go . Thank you, larry. I think we are seeing a lot more flow than and right now. And part of what is going on as one of the appropriate boundaries of. War again, most of the concurring opinions recognize the salient of war and the importance of expediency. We live in an era where there are multiple words on terrors and the boundaries between peace and war are not so clear. But then, natural questions arrive arise about the reservoir the president ial power and the president s ability to push outward on the boundaries. Maybe two additional thoughts. Again, this case gives us the language that we can use when talking about these kinds of situations, but it does not tell us the direction what you are going to go. It does not tell us the outcome were going to come up with. It we can have a similar language. We might be seeing Different Things at the end of the day even if we all speak french. Thats the significance of young stone. Its important obviously in terms of facts and its outcome, but it also gives us lexicon that we can use down the road. But the other thing i would say is we also should not forget that the court itself functions within historical and social context. That also is important in youngstown. The public perception, the justices perception of the popularity of this particular president ial action was not lost. Just as rehnquist writes in his memory about the fact that all of the justices were aware that. And that may have helped in some ways, shape their opinions or attitudes about whether or not they could rule against him in the sense that they could get away with. It thats important for people to understand. When you have the opportunity to talk to the justice or hear them, they all act as if they can insulate themselves. But in fact in reality it doesnt i would refer to cheese justice rehnquist. Were aware of all those things and he said we cannot get it out of our heads. I will defer to him in that regard. But, what the justices have to do, if its in their heads, they still have to use the language. And youngstown, to be able to put together in these words and concepts that they may be thinking about and so far as the particular contest in front of them. We have a minute left. It is very different country. Now what about the court itself . It is a very different kind of court. This is a court now that is dominated by republicans as opposed to democrats, although again, the parties themselves, they represent different particular positions and attitudes in so far as policies and the constitution is concerned. I think saying theres a lot of republicans does not necessarily tell you very much a bout how they necessarily look at particular issues. But the court is also different because it has so much more presents precedent to deal with in the cases that come before. You mentioned some other cases. Now in a case comes up that has a conflict between the president and congress and it may relate to Foreign Affairs. There are precedents. There really werent that many, maybe arguably non, maybe at best one or two cases that courts could rely on in youngstown and thats again why it became such a significant case. Its a groundbreaking case in the sense that the court is going to say, were going to hear these kinds of. Cases and for the last 30 seconds, im going to ask you to some of this up on why this case is significant. What we said, it points to a moment that the courts will periodically intervene and check president ial power during a war, more specifically. Again, it sets up a framework by which to evaluate and adjudicate disputes that occur across the various branches of government. It is really a landmark case in matters involving president ial power. Once again, to terrific guests. Thank you to both of you for being here tonight. Thank you for all your questions. By phone, by tweets and also on the facebook page. They really add to our discussion. Thank you for being with us. American history tv on cspan three. Exploring the people and events that tell the american story every weekend. Coming up this weekend, saturday, at 6 pm eastern on the civil war, historian Harold Holzer and Valerie Pelley talk about related to the july 1863 draft riots in new york city. Featured in their joint publication the civil war and 50 objects. On sunday, at 6 pm on american artifacts, we will tour 14 roe case may museum. The largest fort in the United States which sits at the mount of the Chesapeake Bay near hampton virginia. Here about how the fort served as a beacon of freedom for enslaved people who were protected at the Union Stronghold and how it helped former confederate president Jefferson Davis as prisoner for two years after the war. At 7 pm, a look at fdr, truman and the atomic bomb on the heels of the 75th anniversary of the atomic bombings of hiroshima. With president trumans grab grandson, Clifton Truman daniel. Fdr president ial library and Museum Director paul sparrow and historian edward angle. At 8 pm, on the presidency, Ronald Reagans 1983 interview with Readers Digest and his 1988 interview with the bbc arent. Both interviews were conducted from the oval office with reagan discussing a variety of issues, including his hollywood days. A 1983 bombing that killed u. S. Marines in beirut lebanon. His vision for u. S. Soviet