The Mergence of Legislative and Executive in Wartime
Both theories receive countenance in different pa.s.sages in the opinion of Chief Justice Stone in Hirabayashi _v._ United States.[1274] In disposing of the contention that the curfew imposed upon a citizen of j.a.panese descent involved an invalid delegation of legislative power, the Chief Justice said: "The question then is not one of Congressional power to delegate to the President the promulgation of the Executive Order, but whether, acting in cooperation, Congress and the Executive have const.i.tutional authority to impose the curfew restriction here complained of. * * *, we conclude that it was within the const.i.tutional power of Congress and the executive arm of the Government to prescribe this curfew order for the period under consideration and that its promulgation by the military commander involved no unlawful delegation of legislative power. * * * Where, as in the present case, the standard set up for the guidance of the military commander, and the action taken and the reasons for it, are in fact recorded in the military orders, so that Congress, the courts and the public are a.s.sured that the orders, in the judgment of the commander, conform to the standards approved by the President and Congress, there is no failure in the performance of the legislative function."[1275] He went on to say, however, that: "The essentials of [the legislative] * * * function are the determination by Congress of the legislative policy and its approval of a rule of conduct to carry that policy into execution. The very necessities which attend the conduct of military operations in time of war in this instance as in many others preclude Congress from holding committee meetings to determine whether there is danger, before it enacts legislation to combat the danger."[1276]
Doctrine of Lichter _v._ United States
A similar ambiguity is found in Lichter _v._ United States,[1277] but on the whole the opinion seems to espouse the second theory, as the following excerpts indicate: "_A const.i.tutional power implies a power of delegation of authority under it sufficient to effect its purposes_.--This power is especially significant in connection with const.i.tutional war powers under which the exercise of broad discretion as to methods to be employed may be essential to an effective use of its war powers by Congress. The degree to which Congress must specify its policies and standards in order that the administrative authority granted may not be an unconst.i.tutional delegation of its own legislative power is not capable of precise definition.[1278] * * * Thus, while the const.i.tutional structure and controls of our Government are our guides equally in war and in peace, they must be read with the realistic purposes of the entire instrument fully in mind. In 1942, in the early stages of total global warfare, the exercise of a war power such as the power "To raise and support Armies, * * *" and "To provide and maintain a Navy; * * *," called for the production by us of war goods in unprecedented volume with the utmost speed, combined with flexibility of control over the product and with a high degree of initiative on the part of the producers. Faced with the need to exercise that power, the question was whether it was beyond the const.i.tutional power of Congress to delegate to the high officials named therein the discretion contained in the Original Renegotiation Act of April 28, 1942, and the amendments of October 21, 1942. We believe that the administrative authority there granted was well within the const.i.tutional war powers then being put to their predestined uses."[1279]
WAR POWERS IN TIME OF PEACE
To some indeterminate extent the power to wage war embraces the power to prepare for it and the further power to deal with the problem of adjustment after hostilities have ceased. In his Commentaries, Justice Story wrote as follows with specific reference to the question of preparation for war: ""It is important also to consider, that the surest means of avoiding war is to be prepared for it in peace. * * * How could a readiness for war in time of peace be safely prohibited, unless we could in like manner prohibit the preparations and establishments of every hostile nation? The means of security can be only regulated by the means and the danger of attack. * * * It will be in vain to oppose const.i.tutional barriers to the impulse of self-preservation.""[1280]
Authoritative judicial recognition of the power is found in Ashwander _v._ Tennessee Valley Authority,[1281] where, in sustaining the power of the Government to construct and operate Wilson Dam and the power plant connected with it, pursuant to the National Defense Act of June 3, 1916,[1282] the Court said: "While the District Court found that there is no intention to use the nitrate plants or the hydroelectric units installed at Wilson Dam for the production of war materials in time of peace, "the maintenance of said properties in operating condition and the a.s.surance of an abundant supply of electric energy in the event of war, const.i.tute national defense a.s.sets." This finding has ample support."[1283]
Atomic Energy Act
By far the most significant example of legislation adopted at a time when no actual "shooting war" was in progress, with the object of providing for the national defense, is the Atomic Energy Act of 1946.[1284] That law establishes an Atomic Energy Commission of five members which is empowered to conduct through its own facilities, or by contracts with, or loans to private persons, research and developmental activity relating to nuclear processes, the theory and production of atomic energy and the utilization of fissionable and radioactive materials for medical, industrial and other purposes. The act further provides that the Commission shall be the exclusive owner of all facilities (with minor exceptions) for the production of fissionable materials; that all fissionable material produced shall become its property; that it shall allocate such materials for research and developmental activities, and shall license all transfer of source materials. The Commission is charged with the duty of producing atomic bombs, bomb parts, and other atomic military weapons at the direction of the President. Patents relating to fissionable materials must be filed with the Commission, the "just compensation" payable to the owners to be determined by a Patent Compensation Board designated by the Commission from among its employees.
POSTWAR LEGISLATION
The war power "is not limited to victories in the field. * * * It carries with it inherently the power to guard against the immediate renewal of the conflict, and to remedy the evils which have arisen from its rise and progress."[1285] Accordingly, the Supreme Court held in 1871 that it was within the competence of Congress to deduct from the period limited by statute for the bringing of an action the time during which plaintiff had been unable to prosecute his suit in consequence of the Civil War. This principle was given a much broader application after the first world war in Hamilton _v._ Kentucky Distilleries and Wine Co.,[1286] where the War Time Prohibition Act adopted after the signing of the Armistice was upheld as an appropriate measure for increasing war efficiency. It was conceded that the measure was valid when enacted, since the mere cessation of hostilities did not end the war or terminate the war powers of Congress. The plaintiff contended however that in October 1919, when the suit was brought, the war emergency had in fact pa.s.sed, and that the law was therefore obsolete. Inasmuch as the treaty of peace had not yet been concluded and other war activities had not been brought to a close, the Court said it was "unable to conclude" that the act had ceased to be valid. But in 1924 it held upon the facts that we judicially know that the rent control law for the District of Columbia, which had previously been upheld,[1287] had ceased to operate because the emergency which justified it had come to an end.[1288] A similar issue was present after World War II in Woods _v._ Miller,[1289]
where the Supreme Court reversed a decision of a lower court to the effect that the authority of Congress to regulate rents by virtue of the war power ended with the Presidential proclamation terminating hostilities on December 31, 1946. This decision was coupled with a warning that: "We recognize the force of the argument that the effects of war under modern conditions may be felt in the economy for years and years, and that if the war power can be used in days of peace to treat all the wounds which war inflicts on our society, it may not only swallow up all other powers of Congress but largely obliterate the Ninth and the Tenth Amendments as well. There are no such implications in today"s decision."[1290] In 1948, a sharply divided Court further ruled that the power which Congress has conferred upon the President to deport enemy aliens in time of a declared war was not exhausted when the shooting war stopped. Speaking for the majority of five, Justice Frankfurter declared: "It is not for us to question a belief by the President that enemy aliens who were justifiably deemed fit subjects for internment during active hostilites [sic] do not lose their potency for mischief during the period of confusion and conflict which is characteristic of a state of war even when the guns are silent but the peace of Peace has not come."[1291]
Private Rights in Wartime
ENEMY COUNTRY
Although, broadly speaking, the const.i.tutional provisions designed for the protection of individual rights are operative in war as well as in peace, the incidents of war repeatedly give rise to situations in which judicially enforceable const.i.tutional restraints are inapplicable. In the first place persons in enemy territory are entirely beyond the reach of const.i.tutional limitations. They are subject, in relation to the war powers of the National Government, to the laws of war as interpreted and applied by Congress and by the President as Commander in Chief. To the question: "What is the law which governs an army invading an enemy"s country?" the Court gave the following answer in Dow _v._ Johnson:[1292]
"It is not the civil law of the invaded country; it is not the civil law of the conquering country: it is military law,--the law of war,--and its supremacy for the protection of the officers and soldiers of the army, when in service in the field in the enemy"s country, is as essential to the efficiency of the army as the supremacy of the civil law at home, and, in time of peace, is essential to the preservation of liberty."[1293]
THEATRE OF MILITARY OPERATIONS
That substantially the same rule, resting on the same considerations, applies in the field of active military operations, was a.s.sumed by all members of the Court in Ex parte Milligan.[1294] There the Court held that the trial by a military commission of a civilian charged with acts of disloyalty committed in a part of the country which was remote from the theatre of military operations, and in which the civil courts were open and functioning, was invalid under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
Although unanimous in holding that the military tribunal lacked jurisdiction to try the case, the Court divided, five-to-four, as to the grounds of the decision. The point on which the Justices differed was which department of the Government had authority to say with finality what regions lie within the theatre of military operation. Claiming this as a function of the courts, the majority held that the theatre of war did not embrace an area in which the civil courts were open and functioning.[1295] The minority argued that this was a question to be determined by Congress.[1296] All rejected the argument of the government that the President"s determination was conclusive in the absence of restraining legislation. A similar result was reached in Duncan _v._ Kahanamoku[1297] where, upon an examination of the circ.u.mstances existing in Hawaii after Pearl Harbor, a divided Court found that the authority which Congress had granted to the Territorial Governor to declare martial law "in case of rebellion or invasion, or imminent danger thereof," did not warrant the trial of civilians by military tribunals.
ENEMY PROPERTY
The position of enemy property was dealt with by Chief Justice Marshall in the early case of Brown _v._ United States.[1298] Here it was held that the mere declaration of war by Congress does not effect a confiscation of enemy property situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, but the right of Congress by further enactment to subject such property to confiscation was a.s.serted in the most positive terms. Being an exercise of the war powers of the Government, such confiscation is not affected by the restrictions of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Since it has no relation to the personal guilt of the owner, it is immaterial whether the property belongs to an alien, a neutral, or even to a citizen of the United States. The whole doctrine of confiscation is built upon the foundation that it is an instrument of coercion, which, by depriving an enemy of property within the reach of his power, whether within his territory or without it, impairs his ability to resist the confiscating government, while at the same time it furnishes to that government means for carrying on the war.
Any property which the enemy can use, either by actual appropriation, or by the exercise of control over the owner, no matter what his nationality, is a proper subject of confiscation. Congress may provide for immediate seizure of property which the President or his agent determines to be enemy property, leaving the question of enemy ownership to be settled later at the suit of a claimant. For these reasons the Confiscation Act of 1862,[1299] and the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 and amendments thereto, were held to be within the power of Congress to "make rules concerning captures on land and water."[1300]
PRIZES OF WAR
The power of Congress with respect to prizes is plenary; no one can have any interest in prizes captured except by permission of Congress.[1301]
Nevertheless, since International Law is a part of our law, the Court will administer it so long as it has not been modified by treaty or by legislative or executive action. Thus, during the Civil War, the Court found that the Confiscation Act of 1861, and the Supplementary Act of 1863, which, in authorizing the condemnation of vessels, made provision for the protection of interests of loyal citizens, merely created a munic.i.p.al forfeiture and did not override or displace the law of prize.
It decided, therefore, that when a vessel was liable to condemnation under either law, the government was at liberty to proceed under the more stringent rules of International Law, with the result that the citizen would be deprived of the benefit of the protective provisions of the statute.[1302] Similarly, when Cuban ports were blockaded during the Spanish-American War, the Court held, over the vigorous dissent of three of its members, that the rule of International Law exempting unarmed fishing vessels from capture was applicable in the absence of any treaty provision, or other public act of the Government in relation to the subject.[1303]
POLICE REGULATIONS; RENT CONTROL
In enforcing the requirement of due process of law in its modern expanded sense of "reasonable law" the Court has recognized that a war emergency may justify legislation which would otherwise be an unconst.i.tutional invasion of private rights. Shortly after the first world war, it sustained, by a narrow margin, a rent control law for the District of Columbia, which not merely limited the rents which might be charged but which also gave the existing tenants the right to continue in occupancy of their dwellings at their own option, provided they paid rent and performed other stipulated conditions. The Court, while conceding that ordinarily such legislation would transcend const.i.tutional limitations, declared that "a public exigency will justify the legislature in restricting property rights in land to a certain extent without compensation. * * * A limit in time, to tide over a pa.s.sing trouble, well may justify a law that could not be upheld as a permanent change."[1304] During World War II an apartment house owner who complained that the rentals allowed by the Office of Price Administration did not afford a "fair return" on the property was told by the Court that, "a nation which can demand the lives of its men and women in the waging of * * * war is under no const.i.tutional necessity of providing a system of price control * * * which will a.s.sure each landlord a "fair return" on his property."[1305] Moreover, such rentals may be established without a prior hearing because "national security might not be able to afford the luxuries of litigation and the long delays which preliminary hearings traditionally have entailed. * * *
Where Congress has provided for judicial review after the regulations or orders have been made effective it has done all that due process under the war emergency requires."[1306] The more specific clauses of the Bill of Rights yield less readily, however, to the impact of a war emergency.
In United States _v._ Cohen Grocery Company,[1307] the Court held that a statute which penalized the making of ""any unjust or unreasonable rate or charge in handling * * * any necessaries,"" was void on the ground that it set up no "ascertainable standard of guilt" and so was "repugnant to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments * * * which require due process of law and that persons accused of crime shall be adequately informed of the nature and cause of the accusation."[1308]
PERSONAL LIBERTY IN WARTIME
That the power of Congress to punish seditious utterances in time of war is limited by the First Amendment was a.s.sumed by the Supreme Court in the series of cases[1309] in which it affirmed convictions for violation of the Espionage Act of 1917.[1310] But in the famous opinion of Justice Holmes in Schenck _v._ United States,[1311] it held that: "When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any const.i.tutional right."[1312] A State also has power to make it unlawful to advocate that citizens of the State should not a.s.sist in prosecuting a war against public enemies of the United States.[1313] The most drastic restraint of personal liberty imposed during World War II was the detention and relocation of the j.a.panese residents of the Western States, including those who were native-born citizens of the United States. When various phases of this program were challenged, the Court held that in order to prevent espionage and sabotage, the freedom of movement of such persons could be restricted by a curfew order,[1314]
even by a regulation excluding them from a defined area,[1315] but that a citizen of j.a.panese ancestry whose loyalty was concerned could not be detained against her will in a relocation camp.[1316]
ALIEN ENEMIES
The status of alien enemies was first considered in connection with the pa.s.sage of the Alien Act of 1798,[1317] whereby the President was authorized to deport any alien or to license him to reside within the United States at any place to be designated by the President. Critics of the measure conceded its const.i.tutionality so far as enemy aliens were concerned, because, as Madison wrote, "The Const.i.tution having expressly delegated to Congress the power to declare war against any nation, and, of course, to treat it and all its members as enemies."[1318] The substance of this early law was reenacted during the first world war.
Under it the President is authorized, in time of war, to prescribe "the manner and degree of the restraint to which [alien enemies] shall be subject and in what cases, and upon what security their residence shall be permitted," or to provide for their removal from the United States.[1319] This measure was held valid in Ludecke _v._ Watkins.[1320]
EMINENT DOMAIN
An often-cited dictum uttered shortly after the Mexican War a.s.serted the right of an owner to compensation for property destroyed to prevent its falling into the hands of the enemy, or for that taken for public use.[1321] In United States _v._ Russell,[1322] decided following the Civil War, a similar conclusion was based squarely on the Fifth Amendment, although the case did not necessarily involve the point.
Finally, in United States _v._ Pacific Railroad,[1323] also a Civil War case, the Court held that the United States was not responsible for the injury or destruction of private property by military operations, but added that it did not have in mind claims for property of loyal citizens which was taken for the use of the national forces. "In such cases," the Court said, "it has been the practice of the government to make compensation for the property taken. * * *, although the seizure and appropriation of private property under such circ.u.mstances by the military authorities may not be within the terms of the const.i.tutional clauses."[1324] Meantime, however, in 1874, a committee of the House of Representatives, in an elaborate report on war claims growing out of the Civil War, had voiced the opinion that the Fifth Amendment embodied the distinction between a taking of property in the course of military operations or other urgent military necessity, and other takings for war purposes, and required compensation of owners in the latter cla.s.s of cases.[1325] In determining what const.i.tutes just compensation for property requisitioned for war purposes during World War II, the Court has a.s.sumed that the Fifth Amendment is applicable to such takings.[1326]
Clause 15. _The Congress shall have Power_ * * * To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.
Clause 16. _The Congress shall have Power_ * * * To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
The Militia Clauses
CALLING OUT THE MILITIA
The States as well as Congress may prescribe penalties for failure to obey the President"s call of the militia. They also have a concurrent power to aid the National Government by calls under their own authority, and in emergencies may use the militia to put down armed insurrection.[1327] The Federal Government may call out the militia in case of civil war; its authority to suppress rebellion is found in the power to suppress insurrection and to carry on war.[1328] The act of February 28, 1795,[1329] which delegated to the President the power to call out the militia, was held const.i.tutional.[1330] A militiaman who refused to obey such a call was not "employed in the service of the United States so as to be subject to the article of war," but was liable to be tried for disobedience of the act of 1795.[1331]
REGULATION OF THE MILITIA
The power of Congress over the militia "being unlimited, except in the two particulars of officering and training them, * * *, it may be exercised to any extent that may be deemed necessary by Congress. * * *
The power of the State government to legislate on the same subjects, having existed prior to the formation of the Const.i.tution, and not having been prohibited by that instrument, it remains with the States, subordinate nevertheless to the paramount law of the General Government, * * *"[1332] Under the National Defense Act of 1916,[1333] the militia, which hitherto had been an almost purely State inst.i.tution, was brought under the control of the National Government. The term "militia of the United States" was defined to comprehend "all able-bodied male citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied males who have * * *
declared their intention to become citizens of the United States,"