Congress can withhold executive power through legislative history as decisively as through enacted words

Evidence

It cannot be contended that the President would have had power to issue this order had Congress explicitly negated such authority in formal legislation. Congress has expressed its will to withhold this r wer from the President as though it had said so in so many words. — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process, 2813

Categorization

• DEFINE: Shows how legislative intent expressed in history restricts executive action without an explicit statutory command.
• XREF: The Steel Seizure (Youngstown) case feeds directly into the Reader’s LGST course on separation of powers and institutional roles. — connects to: Unconstitutional presidential acts can escape judicial review when Congress later ratifies them — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 2839; Ambiguous legislative history does not justify abandoning its use — Lawrence M. Friedman and Grant M. Hayden, American Law: An Introduction, 519; Legislative history supplies evidence of an enactment’s purpose and intended meaning — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2460 (+1 more)

Broader Connections

• Ambiguous legislative history does not justify abandoning its use #corroborates (0.85) — Lawrence M. Friedman and Grant M. Hayden, American Law, 519
• Legislative history supplies evidence of an enactment’s purpose and intended meaning #expands (0.82) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2460
• Formalism might be seen not as embodying an embarrassingly crude understanding of communication, but as a sensible and highly pragmatic response to institutional limits of generalist judges and… #corroborates (0.78)