In 1952 at the height of the korean war and labor dispute threatened to shut down the nation steel industry and apparel the war effort to over a strike president harry truman acting as commander-in-chief order the secretary of commerce to season operates several steel mills but the supreme court found that here the president at overstock has constitutional authority and held that only congress acting under its commerce power power cut authorize the seizure of a private property in time of war and i have not done so this is an example of a the judicial branch limiting the legislative branch be the legislative branch limiting the exit in 1952 at the height of the korean war and labor dispute threatened to shut down the nation steel industry and apparel the war effort to over a strike president harry truman acting as commander-in-chief order the secretary of commerce to season operates several steel mills but the supreme court found that here the president at overstock has constitutional authority and held that only congress acting under its commerce power power cut authorize the seizure of a private property in time of war and i have not done so. a) the judicial branch limiting the legislative b) the legislative branch limiting the executive branch c) the judicial branch limiting the executive branch d) the legislative branch limiting the judicial branch

That would be B final

the term is einsatzgruppen

in the united states, the president is controlled by the

constitution, and in all respects subordinate to it. insofar

as it deals with presidential power, however, the american

constitution has proved to be a highly malleable document.

with very few exceptions,' the constitutional provisions relating to the president have not been changed at all since

they were ratified in 1787. but in the late twentieth century, those provisions do not mean what they meant in

1787. the constitution is a legal document, and it is enforced judicially; but its meaning was hardly fixed when it

was ratified. in particular, the contemporary president has

far broader powers than the original constitution contemplated. it is remarkable but true that large-scale changes in

the authority of the president have been brought about

without changes in the constitutional text, but nevertheless

without significant illegality.

this is a paradox. is it not clear that constitutional

changes, if not textual, are illegal? the paradox has considerable relevance to our current thinking about the presidency in particular and about constitutionalism in general.

perhaps the framers of the american constitution feared

legislative power most of all; 2 but from well-known events

in the twentieth century, it is possible to conclude that it is

presidential power that holds out the greatest risks to both

liberty and democracy. the president is by far the most visible leader in the nation; he is often the only person in government with a national constituency. moreover, he is