Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T17:33:08.461Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Executive Determination of Legal Questions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2017

Charles E. Martin
Charles E. Martin*
Affiliation:
University of Washington
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Third Session
Information
Proceedings of the American Society of International Law at its annual meeting (1921-1969) , Volume 42 , 1948 , pp. 53 - 70
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1948

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Missouri v. Holland, 252 U. S. 416, 432-434.Google Scholar

2 U. S. t. Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation, 299 U. S. 304.

3 Corwin , E. S. , , The Constitution and World Organization, pp. 23-24.Google Scholar

4 U. S. Constitution, Art. II, sec. 3.

5 U. S. Constitution, Art. III, sec. 2.

6 Statute, International Court of Justice, Art. 36, sec. 2a.

7 American Society of International Law, Proceedings, 1937, p. 52.

8 lbid., p. 53. ,

9 Ibid., pp. 46-47.

10 See American Society of International Law, Proceedings, 1929, pp. 194-196.

11 133 U. S. 258, 266-267.

12 American Society of International Law, Proceedings, 1937, p. 52.

13 Roosevelt, Theodore, Autobiography, pp. 551-552.

14 301 U. S. 324.

15 Corwin , E. S., The Constitution and World Organization, p. 42.Google Scholar

16 McClure, W. M., International Executive Agreements, p. 344.

17 American Society of International Law, Proceedings, 1937, p. 49.

18 Ibid., p. 50.

19 Ibid., pp. 50-51.

20 143 U. S. 649.

21 299 U. S. 304, 317-318.

22 Ibid., 317-318.

23 290 U. S. 398, 426.

24 Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, IV, pp. 442-443.

25 12 Wallace 700.

26 Ibid., 702.

27 2 Peters 253.

28 Ibid., 307.

29 Ibid., 308.

30 299 U. S. 304 (1936).

31 Ibid., 312.

32 Ibid., 307.

33 Ibid., 320.

34 American Journal of International Law, Vol. 41, No. 3 (July, 1947), pp. 680-689.

35 2 Black 635 (1862).

36 American Journal of International Law, Vol. 41 (1947), pp. 684-685.

37 Ibid., p. 688.

38 Ibid., p. 684.

39 68 S. Ct. 431 (1948), 333 U. S. 103.

40 Mr. Justice Douglas, with Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Reed, and Mr. Justice Rutledge, dissented. Although agreeing that the decisions of the President are not subject to review in foreign or military matters, the dissenting Justices argued that the Constitution grants Congress control over interstate and foreign commerce and that the action of the Board, authorized by Congress, not disapproved by the President, is subject to judicial review. This is necessary in order to protect the President as weE as the litigants and the public interests against an invalid Board order. The dissenting Justices asserted that Congress had sought to preserve the integrity of the administrative process by making judicial review a check on Board action.