Comments On The Youngstown Steels Seizure Case

The scope of the executive power of the President of the United States has always been a vague issue,and the constitutional text,political theory and judicial jurisprudence have failed to clearly define the issue.In 1952,in the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co.v.Sawyer decision,The Supreme Court annulled President Truman's executive order to detain the country's steel industry,perhaps the most famous case in the Supreme Court's presidential power case.Faced with the gradual rise of the strong presidential model since the beginning of the 20 th century,the Youngstown case opened a new round of judicial restraint.The steel seizure could give the impression that there is a big difference between what the verdict stands for and what it says.In other words,the case as a defense of judicial review of administrative acts has great rhetorical and symbolic significance.However,as a theoretical issue,it is difficult to understand why the case occupies this position.The ruling leaves behind a big question about executive power: whether the president can claim non-textual constitutional power in the absence of congressional action or even in an emergency in violation of a congressional bill.What exactly did the Youngstown case say? Is there a clear answer to the question about the scope of the executive power of the President? Why did the case occupy a milestone in the history of court review of administrative acts? What is the meaning of the case? What are the limitations of the case? How do we understand and overcome these limitations? This article attempts to sort out the context of the case,analyze its judgment,explore the established rules and effects of the case,which can provide some thought for us to understand the scope of the executive power of the President of the United States.The first chapter of this paper discusses the presidential power and its development in the text and history of the United States,and finds out the institutional space of the presidential executive power dispute from the fuzziness of the text and the diversity of the theory.The second chapter mainly combs the background and the case of the iron and steel seizure case,analyzes the controversial focus of the case,and focuses on the views and differences of the Supreme Court's judgment.The third chapter is the focus of this paper,which analyzes the theoretical contribution and limitation of the Youngstown case in the judicial review of the presidential power.On the one hand,it introduces the historical status of the case in methodology and symbolic sense,on the other hand,analyzes the theoretical significance of the case,reveals its inherent limitations and gives an explanation.Finally,a brief summary is given.In this paper,the importance of the iron and steel seizure originates from its symbolic meaning,which shows that the court has been able to review and restrict the authority of theexecutive branch.To some extent also the theoretical significance of the co-opinion of Judge Jackson,both the court and the commentator are of the view that this is the most authoritative opinion in the case.However,in the case of the judicial theory,such an opinion cannot be determined to limit the presidential power claim,as it recognizes both the importance of limiting the conduct of the President and the provision of an off-the-the-shelf approach for the maintenance of suspicious presidential acts by the Court.The failure of the Youngstown case to develop a systematic and clear set of jurisprudence principles may be related to the difficulties of the judicial review system itself,and its apparent weakness may be just a kind of judicial modesty self-consciousness.In the face of an increasingly powerful and unfettered president,it seems that to tame the power of the president it is necessary to break through the traditional three-power model and reinvent the mechanism of power checks and balances with a more open mind.