Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Presidents need some leeway, but they do not have absolute authority

A Republic, if we can keep it: Part XXXIII

Black and white photo of a man at a desk and on the phone

Justice Robert H. Jackson's concurring opinion in a 1952 Supreme Court case provides necessary guidance for understanding the powers of the presidency.

Robert H. Jackson was a towering figure in American jurisprudence. The only jurist to serve as solicitor general, attorney general and associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Jackson was a fierce defender of the rule of law. He was also a noted empath. He felt duty-bound to pause his tenure on the high court to prosecute Nazi war criminals in Nuremberg. His impressive legacy on and off the bench is secure.

Jackson’s long and distinguished legal career is probably best remembered for a single concurring opinion in a celebrated separation of powers case.


It all began on April 4, 1952. On that day, the Steelworkers Union, upset about substandard working conditions in the nation’s steel mills, called for a widespread strike. Fearing a massive disruption of steel production would jeopardize America’s war effort in Korea, President Harry Truman issued Executive Order No. 10340, instructing the secretary of commerce to confiscate the mills. The problem for Truman was that the Constitution did not authorize such a seizure and, more devastatingly, Congress had recently debated giving the president authority to seize private industries in times of crisis and had flatly rejected the idea.

Still, the case presented a tricky constitutional question: How broad is the president’s power in times of crisis?

That question would be answered quickly in this case. Indeed, any triumph for Truman was always going to be a longshot. Writing for the majority in the historic Steel Seizure case, Justice Hugo Black refused to bite on the president’s wager. Truman would have to stand down.

But the fundamental question about presidential command still remained. Over time, Jackson’s concurrence — filled with insight into the circumstances of the moment and warnings about the authority of the presidency — has emerged as a “fixed star in our constitutional constellation.” It is now the most influential separation of powers opinion in Supreme Court history.

Jackson never chastised Truman for trying to take control of the mills. He understood the urgency of the situation. But he also recognized that no crisis or emergency should ever supplant the rule of law.

He began his masterful opinion by acknowledging the difficulty of applying imprecise constitutional clauses to the “concrete problems of executive power.” It’s equivalent to divining from materials “almost as enigmatic as the dreams Joseph was called upon to interpret for Pharaoh,” he said.

Difficulties aside, he recognized that his duty was to weigh the potential crisis of the moment against any future leader who might attempt to extend even further “the executive Power” of the presidency. Presidents must have flexibility, he insisted: “Presidential powers are not fixed, but fluctuate, depending upon their disjunction or conjunction with those of Congress.”

But these political officials must also be controlled. Such flexibility can easily lead to authoritarianism. For Jackson, it is the design of government — separated powers and checks and balances — that provides the best antidote for executive supremacy.

Here he chided the solicitor general, Philip Perlman, for casually throwing around “loose and irresponsible adjectives” that tend to “color” all discussion of broad presidential power. No, a president doesn’t have “inherent,” “implied,” “incidental,” “plenary,” “war,” or “emergency” powers. He has constitutional powers. And, yes, those are limited. Even in times of crisis.

To permit the president to do much of anything without congressional approval, Jackson argued, is to concede “power that has no beginning or it has no end. If it exists, it need submit to no legal restraint.” And that, for Jackson, was dangerous. “I am not alarmed that it would plunge us straightaway into dictatorship,” he warned, “but it is at least a step in that wrong direction.”

Jackson’s lessons still resonate today. There is much talk about the “unitary executive theory” that grants virtually unchecked power to the nation’s chief executive. There is much talk about the relative impotence of Congress, an important institutional check on presidential power. There is much talk about a Supreme Court that yields a president considerable latitude and even more immunity. And there is much talk about a polarized nation that now worships a few of its elected leaders.

Justice Jackson begged for caution. He pleaded for restraint — guardrails, in other words. It begins in the people’s branch, he insisted. Congress. Members must be watchdogs, vigilant to the potential abuses of a president who claims “emergency powers.”

“With all its defects, delays, and inconveniences,” Jackson wrote, “men have discovered no technique for long preserving free government except that the Executive be under the law, and that the law be made by parliamentary deliberations.”

Sage advice from a wise counselor. Especially in these times.

Breslin is the Joseph C. Palamountain Jr. Chair of Political Science at Skidmore College and author of “A Constitution for the Living: Imagining How Five Generations of Americans Would Rewrite the Nation’s Fundamental Law.”

Read More

Marines Sent to Los Angeles “Presents a Significant Logistical and Operational Challenge”

Protesters confront National Guard soldiers and police outside of a federal building as protests continue in Los Angeles following three days of clashes with police after a series of immigration raids on June 09, 2025, in Los Angeles, California.

(Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

Marines Sent to Los Angeles “Presents a Significant Logistical and Operational Challenge”

LOS ANGELES, CA - An estimated 700 U.S. Marines are being mobilized from the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center in Twentynine Palms, approximately 140 miles east of Los Angeles, to Camp Pendleton in San Diego County. This mobilization will position the troops closer to Los Angeles, where they may potentially work alongside National Guard units to protect federal resources and personnel, according to NBC News.

The latest figures from police, nearly 70 individuals were arrested over the weekend during protests. This total includes 29 people arrested on Saturday for failure to disperse and 21 individuals arrested on Sunday on charges ranging from attempted murder involving a Molotov cocktail to looting and failure to disperse, as reported by the LAPD.

Keep ReadingShow less
GOP Funding Bill Could Put CA Rural Health Centers, Hospitals at Risk

Medicaid, known as Medi-Cal in California, makes up about 40% of revenue for Community Health Centers, which serve almost 32 million mostly low-income people nationwide.

Arlette/Adobe Stock

GOP Funding Bill Could Put CA Rural Health Centers, Hospitals at Risk

People who depend on Community Health Centers and rural hospitals could have trouble finding care if Medicaid cuts just approved by the U.S. House are signed into law.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated 8 million people nationwide could lose coverage over the next decade, including more than 3 million in California.

Lizette Escobedo, vice president of government relations and civic engagement at AltaMed Health Services in Los Angeles, said the costs to treat a flood of uninsured patients would overwhelm community clinics and small town hospitals.

"If this bill were to be implemented over the next 10 years, some federally qualified health centers and hospitals especially in the rural areas would probably have to close their doors," Escobedo projected.

Supporters of the bill said the savings are needed to fund other administration priorities, including President Donald Trump's 2017 tax cuts. The bill would also tighten work requirements for Medicaid coverage and force people to reapply every six months instead of annually. And it would slash tens of billions in federal funding to states like California allowing health coverage for undocumented people.

Joe Dunn, chief policy officer for the National Association of Community Health Centers, called the proposed cuts counterproductive, in terms of keeping people healthy and keeping costs down.

"Health centers actually save money in the long run, because it reduces utilization of emergency departments and other kind of higher-cost settings, like inpatient hospitalization," Dunn explained.

The bill is now in the U.S. Senate.

GOP Funding Bill Could Put CA Rural Health Centers, Hospitals at Risk was originally published by the Public News Service and is republished with permission.

Keep ReadingShow less
Selective Sympathy: America’s Racial Double Standard on South African Asylum

Unrecognizable person clinging to a fence deprived of freedom

Getty Images//Stock Photo

Selective Sympathy: America’s Racial Double Standard on South African Asylum

It's a peculiar feeling to see the United States, a nation built on the bones of the oppressed, suddenly rebrand itself as a sanctuary for the persecuted as long as those seeking refuge are white. The current executive branch of the American government has managed to weaponize the language of human rights for its own geopolitical and racial ends— that is, selective, self-serving, misguided, and immoral.

The Trump administration is sullying the name of America, with barely a fig leaf of evidence, by trumpeting allegations of "genocide" against white South Africans. The chorus rises from right-wing newsrooms to the halls of Congress, fueled by viral videos and the breathless retelling of farm attacks, stripped of historical context or statistical rigor. White South Africans are an endangered species, so told, and America must fling open its doors, granting not just asylum but a fast track to citizenship—no questions asked.

Keep ReadingShow less
Just the Facts: Who Holds the Cards: The United States or China in Tariff Negotiations
A golden trump head stands before stacks of money.
Photo by Igor Omilaev on Unsplash

Just the Facts: Who Holds the Cards: The United States or China in Tariff Negotiations

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.

What is the current status?

Keep ReadingShow less