Why Was It Unconstitutional For President Harry Truman To Take Over the Coal and Steel Industries

President Obama Being Held To A Different Standard?

By Jim Campbell
Wednesday, April 28, 2010

When President Harry Truman was told by the Supreme Court of the United States of America that his attempts to seize the coal and steel industries were Unconstitutional, why is Barack Hussein Obama being held to a different standard?

Does he believe he is above the law? Is he betting that the current leadership, under Nancy Pelosi would never begin Impeachment Proceedings? What will Republicans do when they eventually gain control of both houses?

On the issue, does he believe he’s above the law? The answer goes without saying as was recently demonstrated during the vote on the health care fiasco. Also his take over of Banks and the Auto Industry would certainly qualify. Is he safe with his bet on Nancy Pelosi, seemingly so.

What will Republicans do when they once again gain control of both houses or make substantial gains in November? It would be most prudent to make President Obama a lame duck, making no more legislation possible during the next two years.

The country would not be well served with another Impeachment when there is so much very important legislation to be implemented, cutting taxes, and useless programs, while putting our country back on the road toward real growth in the private sector.

Random thoughts while observing the passing charade, I’m J.C.

On June 2, 1952, in a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court declared in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer that the president lacked the authority to seize the steel mills. Writing for a badly divided majority, Justice Hugo Black held that the president had no authority under the Constitution to seize private property on the grounds of national security. Since the Congress had not otherwise authorized the president to seize the steel mills, the president could not do so.

When President Truman attempted to deal with striking coal workers, in United States v. Pewee Coal Co. 341 U.S. 114 (1951) as justification for the government’s claims of unfettered executive power. Judge Pine issued his opinion at 4:45 p.m. on April 29. “There is no express grant of power in the Constitution authorizing the President to direct this seizure. There is no grant of power from which it reasonably can be implied. There is no enactment of Congress authorizing it,â€