Youngstown Sheet amp Tube Co v Sawyer Case Brief Summary Law Case Explained

>> YOUR LINK HERE: ___ http://youtube.com/watch?v=HgtajpNvN4M

Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... • • Youngstown Sheet Tube Co. v. Sawyer | 343 U.S. 579 (1952) • By the late 1940s, labor organizations had become a powerful force in America. The government worked with unions to prevent work stoppages, but widespread fear remained about the crippling effects of large-scale strikes. In response, Congress passed the Taft-Hartley Labor Act in 1947, which limited the negotiation tools unions had in collective bargaining disputes, over President Truman’s veto. This did nothing to soothe the contentious relationship between Congress and the President, who had been vocal in his criticism for the “Do-Nothing Congress” in his reelection campaign. • Youngstown Sheet Tube Co. v. Sawyer involved a labor dispute in the early 1950s between steel mill owners and employees about their collective bargaining agreements. The two sides were unable to come to terms, even after federal mediators arrived to help. The workers prepared to strike. • At the time, the United States was involved in the Korean War, and steel was needed for the military. President Truman believed the reduction in steel production from a strike would compromise national defense. He issued an executive order instructing the Secretary of Commerce (Sawyer) to take control of the nation’s steel mills and ensure uninterrupted production. • Youngstown Sheet Tube Co. (plaintiff) and other mill operators sued Sawyer in federal court. Youngstown alleged the President’s order was unconstitutional, because it amounted to legislation, which was Congress’s proprietary role. • The government argued that because the President was acting in response to a national emergency, the order was authorized under “the aggregate of his constitutional powers as the Nation’s Chief Executive and the Commander-in-Chief.” • The district court granted an injunction on the ground that the President had exceeded his constitutional authority, but the court of appeals, sitting en banc, temporarily stayed the injunction. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider whether the President had exceeded his executive powers when he issued the order. • • Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/youngst... • • The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... • • Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/youngst... • • Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_... • Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... • Facebook ► / quimbeedotcom • Twitter ► / quimbeedotcom • #casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries

#############################

New on site