Customer Reviews

Truman and the Steel Seizure Case: The Limits of Presidential Power (Constitutional Conflicts)

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

In an earlier era, steel making was a key strategic industry for the US. Marcus takes us back to 1952 and the tensions of that era. With World War 2 still recently over and the Korean conflict starting up, the international situation looked grave. She walks us through the events that led Truman to take over the steel mills. She marshalls the arguments pro and con for this, that echoed through the nation.

A very readable study in the limitations of presidential power. Plus a current reader might be struck by the parallels between Truman's actions and Bush's recent decisions. Both presidents asserted prerogatives that were strenuously opposed by others. Though in retrospect, the Cold War and the then developing Korean War were far deadlier for the US than the current situation, where the US has a unipolar hyperpower advantage.

This excellent book is a history of Youngstown v. Sawyer, a landmark Supreme Court case on Presidential powers. The case arose when the White House nationalized steel factories in order to block a labor strike that threatened to disrupt steel production during the Korean War. The Supreme Court firmly rejected Truman's claim of an "inherent" Presidential power to seize private property during wartime. Given the extremist constitutional claims made by the current Bush Administration -- including the power to hold American citizens incommunicado for the duration of the (potentially endless) war on terror -- Youngstown remains hugely relevant today.

Marcus lays out the political, legal, and foreign policy contexts of Youngstown before delving into the details of the litigation and discussing the constitutional significance of the outcome. Her exposition is workmanlike and methodical, as befits a recycled doctoral dissertation. My only real complaint -- hence the rating of four stars -- is that long sections of the book are little more than summaries of legal briefs and courtroom oral arguments. These could have been cut back. But with that qualification, I would recommend the book without reservation to anyone interested in American constitutional history or the institution of the Presidency.