Abstract
In a government of divided powers, the respective roles of the president and Congress in determining American foreign policy often are disputed. Rival Supreme Court decisions on this matter, U.S. v. Curtiss‐Wright Export Corporation (1936), and Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952), were resurrected and argued with renewed vigor following the Iran‐contra affair. Despite attempts by the defenders of each decision to discredit or reinterpret the rival case, both decisions stand as reasonable, if incompatible, interpretations of constitutional meaning.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
