President Trumans Steel Seizure

Why Oppose Interventionism?

Century "leaders" do a better job: far from it. The post-9/11 era has seen us play every mistake we ever made, sometimes ten. In its ferocity and scope of America's post-9/11 rampage has no precedent in history : the Mongol invasions, which depopulated much of Asia, and extended into parts of Europe were sporadic in comparison to the relentless U.S. in March across the Middle East and Central Asia. It took Genghis Khan and his descendants a hundred years to build an empire on a large scale U.S. policymakers have built exactly the last decade.

The sheer speed of the operation resumed, as if our leaders are in a hurry to create this "world order" policy wonks in Washington are constantly telling us is needed to

Justin wrote: "This brings us to an essential corollary to the axiom of non-aggression. Reprisal that force is justified only against those who initiate its use"

It is a fine maxim, which has much resonance in the moral intuitions throughout history.

Justin is wrong, however, suggest that the United States act in accordance with this maxim in the use of violence against "Al Qaeda" and other Arab resistance soldiers. Osama bin Laden and his ilk do not initiate violence with the United States. Raids in 2011 were retaliatory strikes against the pro-American violence in Palestine, Iraq and Saudi Arabia (military occupation is a form of violence). The United States and Israel initiated the violence.

The United States, as the aggressor, has no moral right under this principle to kill Arabs who are fighting to defend their people and their lands from US-Israeli aggression.

Justin recognizes the phenomenon of "blowback," but he doesn't seem to grasp its moral standing under his non-aggression maxim.

As the difference between Republicans and Democrats gets smaller and smaller with every successive administration, all they have left is to give different style speeches. One veils pointless and expensive aggression in phoney patriotic terms, the other in empty humanitarian platitudes. One doesn't even feel the need to justify intervention but sees aggression as a good for its own sake, the other justifies it poorly for the sake of some non-existent greater good. Ironically, the Republicans, ordinarily not fans of Darwin, see the US as exercising its might (and evil and stupidity) everywhere as its natural right, given that it is the strongest nation (on the surface) around so killing the dark starving non-JudeoChristian peoples is the natural order of things, while the Democrats think that doing so is for the good of the victims.

The Steel Seizure Case - Appellate Law NJ Blog

, 343 U.S. 579 (1952).  By a 6-3 vote, the Court held that President Truman had no constitutional power to seize the steel mills.

Justice Black wrote the majority opinion.  But each of the five other Justices who comprised the majority (Justices Jackson, Burton, Clark, Douglas, and Frankfurter) also wrote his own separate opinion.  Chief Justice Vinson wrote a dissent, in which Justices Reed and Minton joined.  The four Justices whom President Truman had appointed– Chief Justice Vinson, and Justices Burton, Clark and Minton– split evenly in this case. 

The case featured some famous lawyers.  John W. Davis, the 1924 Democratic candidate for President of the United States and a leading appellate practitioner, argued the case for the steel mills.  Arthur J. Goldberg, a future Supreme Court Justice and United Nations Ambassador, argued on behalf of the United Steelworkers of America, an amicus curiae.

Youngstown Sheet & Tube

Bruce D. Greenberg, a partner of Lite  DePalma Greenberg, LLC , has nearly 30 years of appellate experience.  He has argued dozens of cases in New Jersey’s Appellate Division, and he has handled oral arguments in the Supreme Court of New Jersey and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals as well.  Mr. Greenberg’s appellate cases have ranged from . .