By Stephen Macaulay
Back in 1952, war was raging in Korea. President Harry Truman faced all manner of economic challenges, including something we are all-too familiar with, inflation.
To help manage the economic situation the Office of Price Stabilization (OPS) and the Wage Stabilization Board (WSB) were established. The former made sure that there were price controls on things deemed important to the war effort. The latter was charged with making sure that there weren’t excessive wage increases in private industry.
War wreaks havoc on economies.
And just as we have recently seen in the auto industry, trade unions, especially those in the steel industry, were exerting their power.
The workers, of course, wanted a wage increase.
The steel companies, of course, wanted to raise the price of steel should they have to increase the wages.
To borrow an alleged quote from Napoleon— “An army marches on its stomach” — “a war is fought with steel.”
Well, as it happens, the OPS and the WSB became involved.
Things seemed to be reaching an impasse that would lead to a strike, which would mean no steel, which would mean a problem vis-à-vis defending the 38th parallel.
So Harry Truman seized the steel mills by Executive Order.
He wanted to keep the materials for tanks and ammunition and the like produced.
Seems like an extreme, but understandable thing to do.
“Give ‘em Hell Harry” acted for purposes of national defense.
The steel companies sued.
It went to the Supreme Court.
Which decided, in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, that Harry Truman’s Executive Order had exceeded his authority as president.
This historical minute is something that is part of the ruling in United States of America v. Donald J. Trump, the decision made by the justices of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
As the justices write, “President Truman could lawfully act only to execute the Congress’s laws or to carry out his constitutional duties as the Executive; and he lacked authority from either source to seize the steel mills.”
Trump argues, in part, that whatever he did as president is OK.
The issues he is facing related are related, in large part, to election interference and election fraud.
As it is put in the ruling:
“The Indictment alleges that former President Trump understood that he had lost the election and that the election results were legitimate but that he nevertheless was ‘determined to remain in power.’”
Truman was ostensibly acting for the good of the country.
Trump clearly acted on behalf of Trump.
The Appeals Court justices quote 19th century Supreme Court Justice David J. Brewer: “No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who by accepting office participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives.”
Or, to simply quote Baretta:
“Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.”
Regardless of what position you once held.