United States v. Curtiss-Wright case brief

United States v. Curtiss-Wright (S Ct 1936, p. 192)

• Appellees conspired to sell guns to Bolivia in violation of joint resolution of Congress. Joint resolution of Congress authorizing president to prohibit the sale of arms. Appellees argue that Congress illegally delegated lawmaking pwr to the President.
• Holding: There is sufficient warrant for the broad discretion vested in the President to determine whether enforcement of the statute will have a beneficial effect upon the reestablishment of peace in the affected countries.
• The real issue is the source of the President’s power—Constitution w/ respect to foreign affairs or legislative (where can’t delegate)
• W/ respect to internal pwrs, unenumerated powers go to states. W/ respect to intl ones, ct says fed govt shld decide on foreign affairs.
• This pwr didn’t depend on Constitution, but passed from King to Fed Govt.
• Troublesome thing about the opinion: it goes beyond the intl power being in the exec and talks about functional reasons (need for secrecy, etc.)
• N. 3, p. 197—Source of foreign affairs—does the fed govt possess extra-constitutional powers? Like Missouri v. Holland. Suggestion that President does have some extra-constitutional powers in foreign affairs/intl law. This is pt of the dualism pwr. The Vienna Convention recognizes dualism.