United States v. Curtiss-Wright case brief summary (1936; US)
Facts: D, Curtiss-Wright, conspired to sell arms of war to Bolivia, who was then involved in the Chaco war. This was in violation of the Joint Resolution of Congress that gave the President broad authority to prohibit sales of weapons to countries involved in the Chaco War. Curtiss-Wright challenged the validity of this proclamation, arguing that the regulations following from it were unconstitutional, because it gave the President too broad a discretionary authority, and that Congress has the authority to regulate commerce, and cannot delegate that power to the President in such broad terms.
Issue: Whether the Joint Resolution of Congress was unconstitutional.
Answer: No.
Holding: Judgment for U.S.
Reasoning: While the Constitution may not explicitly say that all ability toconduct foreign policy on behalf of the nation is vested in the President, such power is nonetheless granted implicitly.
Also, the Executive, by its very nature,is empowered to conduct foreign affairs in a way which Congress cannot and should not.
The Court stated that "there is sufficient warrant for the broad discretionvested in the President to determine whether the enforcement of the statute will have a beneficial effect upon the reestablishment of peace in the affected countries."
Facts: D, Curtiss-Wright, conspired to sell arms of war to Bolivia, who was then involved in the Chaco war. This was in violation of the Joint Resolution of Congress that gave the President broad authority to prohibit sales of weapons to countries involved in the Chaco War. Curtiss-Wright challenged the validity of this proclamation, arguing that the regulations following from it were unconstitutional, because it gave the President too broad a discretionary authority, and that Congress has the authority to regulate commerce, and cannot delegate that power to the President in such broad terms.
Issue: Whether the Joint Resolution of Congress was unconstitutional.
Answer: No.
Holding: Judgment for U.S.
Reasoning: While the Constitution may not explicitly say that all ability toconduct foreign policy on behalf of the nation is vested in the President, such power is nonetheless granted implicitly.
Also, the Executive, by its very nature,is empowered to conduct foreign affairs in a way which Congress cannot and should not.
The Court stated that "there is sufficient warrant for the broad discretionvested in the President to determine whether the enforcement of the statute will have a beneficial effect upon the reestablishment of peace in the affected countries."
No comments:
Post a Comment