The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation - LightNovelsOnl.com
You're reading novel online at LightNovelsOnl.com. Please use the follow button to get notifications about your favorite novels and its latest chapters so you can come back anytime and won't miss anything.
[35] Ex parte Kollock, 165 U.S. 526 (1897).
[36] b.u.t.tfield _v._ Stranahan, 192 U.S. 470 (1904).
[37] United States _v._ Grimaud, 220 U.S. 506 (1911).
[38] United States _v._ Shreveport Grain & Elevator Co., 287 U.S. 77, 85 (1932).
[39] Currin _v._ Wallace, 306 U.S. 1 (1939).
[40] Avent _v._ United States, 266 U.S. 127 (1924).
[41] United States _v._ Rock Royal Co-operative, 307 U.S. 533 (1939).
[42] Yakus _v._ United States, 321 U.S. 414 (1944).
[43] Bowles _v._ Willingham, 321 U.S. 503 (1944).
[44] Suns.h.i.+ne Anthracite Coal Co. _v._ Adkins, 310 U.S. 381, 397 (1940).
[45] Hirabayas.h.i.+ _v._ United States, 320 U.S. 81, 104 (1943); Korematsu _v._ United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944).
[46] Fahey _v._ Mallonee, 332 U.S. 245 (1947).
[47] Mulford _v._ Smith, 307 U.S. 38 (1939).
[48] Interstate Commerce Comm'n. _v._ Goodrich Transit Co., 224 U.S.
194, 214 (1912).
[49] Although reversing the decision of the State supreme court that rates fixed by the commission were not subject to judicial review, the Supreme Court implicitly sanctioned the exercise of rate-making power by such bodies. Chicago, M. & St. P.R. Co. _v._ Minnesota, 134 U.S. 418 (1890).
[50] Hampton & Co. _v._ United States, 276 U.S. 394, 408 (1928).
[51] State of Minnesota _v._ Chicago, M. & St. P.R. Co. 38 Minn. 281, 301 (1888).
[52] Interstate Commerce Commission _v._ Louisville & N.R. Co., 227 U.S.
88 (1913); New York _v._ United States, 331 U.S. 284, 340-350 (1947) and cases cited therein. _See also_ New York et al. _v._ United States, 342 U.S. 882 (1951).
[53] Union Bridge Co. _v._ United States, 204 U.S. 364 (1907).
[54] First Nat. Bank _v._ Fellows, ex rel. Union Trust Co., 244 U.S. 416 (1917).
[55] Mahler _v._ Eby, 264 U.S. 32 (1924); United States ex rel. Tisi _v._ Tod, 264 U.S. 131 (1924).
[56] New York Central Securities Corp. _v._ United States, 287 U.S. 12, 25 (1932).
[57] Federal Radio Comm'n. _v._ Nelson Bros. Bond & Mortgage Co., 289 U.S. 266 (1933).
[58] National Broadcasting Co. _v._ United States, 319 U.S. 190 (1943).
[59] 50 Stat. 246, as amended, 7 U.S.C. -- 601 _et seq._
[60] Brannan _v._ Stark, 342 U.S. 451 (1952). Justice Black, with whom Justices Reed and Douglas concurred, dissented, saying: "In striking down these provisions of the Secretary's order, the Court has departed from many principles it has previously announced in connection with its supervision over administrative agents. Under these principles, the Court would refrain from setting aside administrative findings of fact when supported by substantial evidence; we would give weight to the interpretation of a statute by its administrators; when, administrators have interpreted broad statutory terms, such, as here involved, we would recognize that it is our duty to accept this interpretation even though it was not 'the only reasonable one' or the one 'we would have reached had the question arisen in the first instance in judicial proceedings.'
Unemployment Comm'n _v._ Aragon, 329 U.S. 143, 153 (1946)." Ibid. 484.
[61] Jackson _v._ Roby, 109 U.S. 440 (1883); Erhardt _v._ Boaro, 113 U.S. 527 (1885); b.u.t.te City Water Co. _v._ Baker, 196 U.S. 119 (1905).
[62] St. Louis, I.M. & S.R. Co. _v._ Taylor, 210 U.S. 281, 286 (1908).
[63] 295 U.S. 495, 537 (1935).
[64] 298 U.S. 238, 311 (1936).
[65] Currin _v._ Wallace, 306 U.S. 1 (1939); United States _v._ Rock Royal Co-operative, 307 U.S. 533, 577 (1939).
[66] Currin _v._ Wallace, 306 U.S. 1, 15, 16 (1939).
[67] 7 Cr. 382 (1813).
[68] Ibid. 388.
[69] 143 U.S. 649 (1892).
[70] Ibid. 691.
[71] Ibid. 692, 693.
[72] Hampton Jr. & Co. _v._ United States, 276 U.S. 394 (1928).
[73] 299 U.S. 304, 312 (1936).
[74] Ibid. 319-322.--United States _v._ Chemical Foundation, 272 U.S. 1 (1926) presented the anomalous situation of the United States suing to set aside a sale of alien property sold by one of its agents, the Alien Property Custodian, by authority of the President. The government contended that statute under which the sale was made was unconst.i.tutional because, in giving the President full power of disposition of the property, it delegated legislative power to the President. Declaring that "It was peculiarly within the province of the Commander-in-Chief to know the facts and to determine what disposition should be made of enemy properties in order effectively to carry on the war," the Court affirmed a decree dismissing the suit. Ibid. 12.
[75] 293 U.S. 388 (1935).
[76] 312 U.S. 126 (1941).
[77] Ibid. 144, 145.
[78] White House Digest of Provisions of Law Which Would Become Operative upon Proclamation of a National Emergency by the President.
The Digest is dated December 11, 1950. It was released to the press on December 16th. 15 F.R. 9029.
[79] United States _v._ Grimaud, 220 U.S. 506 (1911).
[80] Steuart & Bros. Inc. _v._ Bowles, 322 U.S. 398, 404 (1944).
[81] United States _v._ Eaton, 144 U.S. 677 (1892).
[82] Steuart & Bros. Inc. _v._ Bowles, 322 U.S. 398 (1944).
