Answer

U.S Ex parte Quirin

 317 U.S. 1, 63 S. Ct. 2 (1942)

Facts of Case

The case relates to Operation Pastorius. It highlights the failed attempt made by Nazi agents in June 1942 to sabotage U.S. targets. After the declaration of war between the U.S. and Germany, eight German residents underwent training on sabotage near Berlin. Later, these men traveled to the U.S through a submarine. On June 13, 1942, four of the men landed near Long Island in New York with their German uniforms and explosives. Four days later, the remaining four men came to the U.S. following a similar approach, and landed at Ponte Vedra Beach in Florida. However, shortly after landing, two of these men, Burger and Dasch backed out of the mission. Dasch then turned himself in to the Federal Bureau of Investigations. This led to the arrest of all eight conspirators. President Franklin Roosevelt ordered that they be tried by the military commission. All eight men were found guilty and were sentences to death. However, due to the confessions and cooperations of Burger and Dasch, their sentences were changed to life in prison.

Procedural History

After the first ruling by the commission, seven of the eight conspirators argued that the president had exceeded his power by ordering the commission and that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the constitution protected their rights to a regular trial. Therefore, they filed for a writ of habeas corpus in Federal District Court. Unfortunately, their claims were also denied in this court. They went ahead and appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. However, before the court ruled on the matter, the conspirators filed for a hearing before the Supreme Court, and separately filed for a petition for a habeas corpus with the court. The court accepted to sit and hear the cases.

Legal Issue(s)

Did the president exceed his authority when he ordered a trial by military commission for the eight German saboteurs, thereby leading to a violation of their Fifth and Sixth Amendments rights?

Statement of Rule

Concerning matters of acts of war, the court will not set aside any orders made by the president since that power has been invested to the president under the constitution. Also, a federal court may refuse to issue a writ of habeas corpus where the facts alleged in the petition would still not warrant discharge from prison.

Policy (if there is any)

The Fifth and Sixth Amendments which warrant that everyone has a right of trial in a regular court is what has been applied. However, there is also the powers awarded to the president under the constitution. It is this power that the president used in his influence on the current case.

Reasoning

The court makes a distinction between the prisoners of war and the enemy belligerent. It is different when a country is at war and one is captured, and another to sneak into the country in order to steal important information for use to destroy the property. Therefore, the distinction is what will affect the criminal’s rights. In the current situation, it is clear that the prisoners fall within the distinction of enemy belligerents who knowingly violated the laws of war.

Holding

No, the president did not exceed his authority when he ordered a trial by the military commission. Since the presidential order did not violate the constitution, the court will not set aside the orders. With regards to times of war, the constitution indicates that the President has the power to wage war and carry into effect any laws concerning the war conduct, regulation of armed forces, and all the laws that define and punish offences against the nation’s laws.

United States v. Curtiss-Wright Exp. Corp.

 299 U.S. 304, 57 S. Ct. 216 (1936)

Facts of Case

In this case, Congress passed a Joint Resolution that authorized the President to ban any sales of arms to countries that were currently involved in the border dispute between Bolivia and Paraguay. Immediately, the president made an executive order banning these sales. The Defendant was then indicted for conspiring to sell fifteen machine guns to Bolivia, thereby violating the Joint Resolution, as well as the Executive Order.

Procedural History

After the Joint Resolution of Congress authorized the president to declare the sale of arms to specific countries as illegal, the president took immediate action and declared the sales unlawful. However, this proclamation was later revoked. However, the Defendant allegedly sold the arms to Bolivia before the president revoked the proclamation. That is why they demurred the charges against them, citing that the revocation precluded their prosecution. The trial court granted the defendant the demurrer.

Legal Issue(s)

Does the Congress have the power to delegate the authority to promulgate laws to the President, in relation to foreign affairs matters?

Statement of Rule

The non-delegation doctrine does not prevent the Congress from delegating authority to the President of the United States on matters of foreign affairs.

Policy (if there is any)

To achieve the foreign policy aims of the United States, the president is better places than Congress to judge conditions that exist in the other nations. To help in his decisions, the president has at his disposal, the confidential information, as well as diplomatic and foreign affairs officers. 

Reasoning

In matters of foreign affairs, the president is the representative of the country. He is better placed to address and identify issues of the country, most especially since he also has confidential information at his disposal. Therefore, when the matter is expected to lead to embarrassment of the nation, or even place it at risk of security issues, the president is the suitable decision maker. Hence, the argument that the president’s proclamation was invalid is clearly unjustified. Also, his revocation of the proclamation does not change the fact that the defendant violated the joint resolution. It only stopped the joint resolution from being enforced in future against sales of arms to Bolivia. Hence, the defendants’ demurrer was reversed.

Holding

Yes, the Congress can delegate powers of foreign affairs to the President since he has broad authority to conduct foreign affairs. The President has exclusive powers as the sole body within the federal government in relation to international relations. However, just as is the case with other powers, it must be exercised in subordination to the provisions of the Constitution. Therefore, to avoid embarrassments and even security problems, the Congress is expected to delegate such powers to intervene. If it were only for domestic affairs, then the President would not have been granted those powers.