Word: powers
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1900-1909
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
Scott, for Princeton, followed Daniels in rebuttal, and said that it was for the public good that the President should have the proposed power, both in the case of violation of national laws and violation of State laws, when the State cannot deal with such violation. It then is necessary to choose between federal protection and no protection...
Since the possible existence of such a situation is granted, he contended that probability of its arising need not be proved. But in addition industrial conditions show a reasonable probability that such conditions as need summary action will arise. If therefore there is not sufficient power in the hands of the President to deal with the situation, protection has not been adequately provided. The absence of request for federal aid may come in any crises either from political considerations, State pride, or actual sympathy with lawlessness...
...possession of power of intervention by the President would mean the restoration of law and order and would always result for the public welfare. It is therefore, he concluded, both necessary and desirable that the President should have the power to deal directly with cases of domestic violence...
...main contention of Hornblower, the third speaker for Princeton, was that the power of national interference can be vested in no one but the President. He showed that the federal courts are judicial, whereas the proposed power requires executive force. Nor can the power, he said, be given to Congress, for that is a deliberative body and cannot act quickly. None of the objections to the granting of this power to the President are valid. Though it is said that the power could be abused it must be remembered that the possibility of abuse and probability of abuse...
...debate for Harvard. He said that to make a radical change in our government when unnecessary is bad enough, but to make that change when it means serious practical evils is far worse. These are two of the specific evils of the change advocated by the affirmative; one man power would be created; and in a most critical period presidents and governors would be brought into conflict. Great confusion would result. The protection of life and property and the discretionary power of a military officer create in time of peace a martial law justifiable only as a last resort...