Bowsher vs.

Synar
Facts. The Comptroller General was an office created by the Budget and Accounting Act, appointed by the
President with advice and consent of the Senate, from recommendations made by the Speaker of the House
and the President pro tempore of the Senate. He serves a single fourteen-year term. Congress has complete
control over the Generals tenure.

Issue. Whether the Comptroller General is controlled by Congress.

Whether the Comptroller General ha[d] been assigned [executive] powers in the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
Held. Yes. The Supreme Court of the United States (the Court), zeroed in on the specific language of the
Budget and Accounting Act. Because so many of the provisions of the Act placed the Comptroller General
firmly under Congressional control, specifically removal authority, the Court concluded that the General may
not be entrusted with executive powers. Yes. The Court, again paying attention to the specific provisions of
the act, found that the office was the very essence of execution of the law. Under the law, the Comptroller
General must exercise judgment concerning facts that affect the application of the Act. He must also interpret
the provisions of the Act to determine precisely what budgetary calculations are required. The Court
concluded that Congress in effect has retained control over the execution of the Act and has intruded into the
executive function. Dissent. Justice Whites dissent focused on what he saw as the Courts attaching
dispositive significance to what should be regarded as a triviality. Justice Blackmuns dissent argued that the
original statute should have been found unconstitutional. Concurrence. Justice Stevens, joined by Justice
Marshall, concurred in the judgment, focusing on Article I of the Constitution.

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (The Steel Seizure Case)

Discussion. The structure of the Constitution does not permit Congress to execute the laws; it follows that
Congress cannot grant to an officer under its control what it does not possess.
Brief Fact Summary. During the Korean War, President Truman in order to avoid a strike that would impede
the war effort, issued an executive order seizing the mills and operating them under federal direction.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. The President has limited inherent authority. He may have a legislative power in
theaters of war. The President can act without Congress when it is an emergency and Congress has not
negated such action that the President wishes to undertake.
Facts. During the Korean War, President Truman seized the steel mills so that a strike would not impede the
Korean War effort. The United Steel Workers were upset that they were not getting paid enough and wanted a
raise. President Truman was afraid that a strike would cause the United States to run out of steel. Congress
had allowed the strike with the Taft Hartley Act passed in 1947 over President Trumans veto. The Act gave the
president the power to get an injunction against such strikes but Congress had rejected an amendment to
permit government seizures to avoid serious shutdowns.

Issue. Can President Truman acting under the aggregate of his powers, exercise a law making power
independent of Congress in order to protect serious national interests?
Held. Justice Black opinion. No.
Although Article II Section: 1 grants executive power to the President to execute the laws. His general
executive power is inapplicable since there was no relevant law here to execute. Under Section 2, the
Commander in Chief power does not warrant the seizure here either, since it was lawmaking and too far
removed from the theater of war. That power did not include the President being able to take possession of
private property in order to keep labor disputes from stopping production. That is the job for the Nations
lawmakers and not for its military authorities. The Founders of the Nation entrusted the lawmaking power to the
Congress alone in good and bad times.
Dissent. Chief Justice Vinson, Justices Reed and Minton dissenting.
There was legislation authorizing the supplying of the forces engaged in the Korean War. The President had a
duty to execute the foregoing legislative programs and successful execution depended upon continued
production of steel and stabilized prices for steel.
Work stoppage would have resulted in a serious curtailment of production of essential weapons and munitions
of all kinds. The President was acting to save the legislative programs and in that sense he was there to take
care that the laws were faithfully executed. He had to execute a defense program which Congress had enacted
and strike would have had a disastrous effect on those programs. The President acted to preserve those
programs by seizing the steel mills. It was temporary and subject to congressional direction. Presidents in the
past have acted in the same way.
Concurrence. All of the Justices who joined Justice Blacks opinion for the Court also wrote individual
concurring opinions.
Justice Frankfurter stated that questions concerning the extent of the Presidential power in the absence of
legislation were not before the Court. The Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 was an explicit
Congressional negation of the authority asserted by the seizure
Justice Burton stated that the controlling fact was that Congress had prescribed specific procedures and they
did include seizure for this emergency.
Justice Douglas emphasized the Fifth Amendments requirement for compensation for takings of property.
Justice Jackson said that the President had inherent legislative powers to act in preserving the nation, but only
when there was an absence of any provision passed by Congress purporting to deal with the situation.
Justice Clark stated that the President must follow the procedures laid down by Congress in the Act. If
Congress had not acted, then in the absence of Congressional action, the Presidents independent power to
act depends on the gravity of the situation confronting the nation.
Discussion. The majority described this as inherent power, while the dissent argued this was implied power.
If there had been an emergency and Congress had declined or neglected to act, then the President would
have had the narrow sliver of authority to seize the steel mills. This is inherent power.
The dissent argued that the President exercised his implied powers to take care that the laws were faithfully
executed. Since the list in the United States Constitution of the Presidents powers is not exclusive, then as
long as the Presidents act seems reasonably related to carrying out the laws made by Congress, the Court will
not strike the act merely because it does not fall within any narrow enumerated presidential power.