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?

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

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

Notre Dame at night

People gather to watch the reopening ceremony of the Notre Dame Cathedral on Dec. 7.

Telmo Pinto/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

Cherishing our institutions: Notre Dame’s miraculous reopening

We witnessed a marvel in Paris this weekend.

When a devastating 2019 fire nearly brought Notre Dame Cathedral to the ground, President Emanuel Macron set the ostensibly impossible goal of restoring and reopening the 860-year-old Gothic masterpiece within five years. Restorations on that scale usually take decades. It took almost 200 years to complete the cathedral in the first place, starting in 1163 during the Middle Ages.

Could Macron’s audacious challenge — made while the building was still smoldering — be met?

Keep ReadingShow less
Two men sitting on a couch

Sen. Marco Rubio (left), President-elect Donald Trump's nominee to be the next secretary of state, meets with Sen. Lindsey Graham on Dec. 3, in advance of Senate confirmation hearings.

Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

Does it take six months on average for the Senate to confirm a president's nominees?

This fact brief was originally published by Wisconsin Watch. Read the original here. Fact briefs are published by newsrooms in the Gigafact network, and republished by The Fulcrum. Visit Gigafact to learn more.

Does it take six months on average for the US Senate to confirm a president's nominees?

Yes.

The average time the U.S. Senate takes to approve nominees to a president’s administration is more than six months.

The nonprofit Center for Presidential Transition reported that as of Nov. 11, 2024, the average number of days has more than doubled under presidents elected since the 1980s:

Keep ReadingShow less
Closed pharmacy

Pharmacies are closing all across the United States.

J. Michael Jones/Getty Images

28 miles to the nearest pharmacy? For many, that's the only option.

Pharmacies in the United States are closing at an alarming rate. The ACT Pharmacy Collaborative, a partnership between community pharmacy networks and academia, reported that 244 pharmacies closed in just the first six weeks of 2024. Similarly, Rite-Aid has closed 500 stores, CVS will close another 300 stores by the end of the year and Walgreens will close 1,200 over the next three years.

In my home state of Oregon, pharmacists are constantly facing untenable scenarios. At a recent hearing, a pharmacist from a rural community testified how a woman from a neighboring town called his pharmacy late in the day needing to urgently fill a prescription. Unfortunately, the only pharmacy in her town had permanently closed, so she was stuck frantically attempting to locate someone who took their insurance and had the medication in stock. His pharmacy had the medication, so while she drove 28 miles on rural roads, the pharmacy stayed open — 30 minutes after closing because that’s what pharmacists do. We take care of patients.

Keep ReadingShow less
Stethoscope on American national flag, close up
FabrikaCr/Getty Images

Ensuring equity and sustainability: Government's role in health care

Health care stands at the crossroads of innovation and necessity. To function productively, our nation requires health care that is compassionate, equitable and accessible to all. As challenges such as rising costs, disparities in access and sustainability strain the U.S. health care system, government involvement emerges as a critical pillar in ensuring its viability.

Keep ReadingShow less