1. Trang chủ
  2. » Văn bán pháp quy

Gale Encyclopedia Of American Law 3Rd Edition Volume 10 P50 pps

10 229 0
Tài liệu đã được kiểm tra trùng lặp

Đang tải... (xem toàn văn)

THÔNG TIN TÀI LIỆU

Thông tin cơ bản

Định dạng
Số trang 10
Dung lượng 344,88 KB

Các công cụ chuyển đổi và chỉnh sửa cho tài liệu này

Nội dung

Unlike the X rating, the NC-17 rating was trademarked by the MPAA, so it could not be used by producers of films that were not MPAA productions.. However, the defense has never been succ

Trang 1

principal’s son and the principal’s doctor, and then notarized The Durable General Power of Attorney was later challenged by the principal’s daughter, who claimed that the principal had lacked mental capacity to sign the document, due to his medical condition In re Hoerter,

15 Misc.3d 1101(A), 836 N.Y.S.2d 499 (Table N.Y Sur 2007)

FURTHER READINGS McGovern, William M., and Sheldon F Kurtz 2001 Wills, Trusts, and Estates 2d ed St Paul, Minn.: West Group.

CROSS REFERENCES Signature.

X, MALCOLM SeeMALCOLM X

X RATING

A classification devised by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the National Association of Theater Owners (NATO) in 1968

to designate certain films containing excessive violence or explicit sexuality It was replaced in

1990 by the NC-17 rating (no one 17 and under admitted)

Since the 1920s the U.S movie industry has practiced self-regulation to forestall government

CENSORSHIP In 1968, the MPAA and NATO adopted a movie-rating system that is based on age classification Any film produced or distrib-uted by members of MPAA must receive a rating from a Ratings Board, which is part of its Classification and Rating Administration There

are five rating classifications: G (suitable for all ages); PG (parental guidance suggested); PG-13 (may not be suitable for children under age 13);

R (restricted, children younger than age 17 must

be accompanied by a parent or guardian); and, until 1990, X (no one under age 17 admitted)

In 1990, the X rating was changed to NC-17 The distinction between the R and the X rating was based on the overall sexual or violent content of a movie A movie was given an R rating

if it contained adult themes, nudity, sex, or profanity A movie given an X rating contained

an accumulation of brutal or sexually connota-tive language or explicit sex, or excessive and sadistic violence

Over time, very few MPAA-produced movies were given an X rating If an X rating was awarded, a producer would usually re-edit the film to qualify for an R rating This re-editing was done because theater owners generally refused to book X-rated movies, thereby reducing the size of the potential audience In the 1970s, the X-rating concept was used by the producers and exhibitors of pornographic movies as a promotional device Though these films were not MPAA produc-tions, and the producers could not submit their films for review, the X rating was not trademarked by MPAA This meant that pornographic films could be advertised as X-rated or XXX-rated, which suggested that the MPAA’s X rating was a code for hardcore

PORNOGRAPHY Because of this problem, the X rating was changed in 1990 to NC-17 The MPAA sought

to reaffirm the ORIGINAL INTENT of the 1968 ratings design, in which the “adults-only” category explicitly describes a movie that most parents would not want their children to see Unlike the X rating, the NC-17 rating was trademarked by the MPAA, so it could not be used by producers of films that were not MPAA productions Despite the attempt to remove the taint of pornography from the adults-only category, the NC-17 rating, like the X rating before it, is avoided by motion picture compa-nies Theater owners remain opposed to exhibiting films that substantially restrict the size of the potential audience, many of whom are 17 years old or younger

Because it was never trademarked, the X rating is still used occasionally by films that do not seek the MPAA’s approval More

Movies may be

advertised as rated

XXX in order to

attract customers, but

this is not a rating

from the Motion

Picture Association of

America, which only

rates movies produced

by its members.

JAMES LEYNSE/CORBIS.

G A L E E N C Y C L O P E D I A O F A M E R I C A N L A W , 3 E

478 X, MALCOLM

Trang 2

commonly, those films are released as unrated

or with no rating

FURTHER READINGS

Classification and Rating Administration Website

“Every-thing You Always Wanted to Know about the Movie

Rating System ” Available online at www.filmratings.

com/questions.htm (accessed Sept 25, 2009).

CROSS REFERENCES

Entertainment Law; Movie Rating; Theaters and Shows.

XYY CHROMOSOMAL ABNORMALITY

DEFENSE

A legal theory that holds that a defendant’s XYY

chromosomal abnormality is a condition that

should relieve him or her of legal responsibility for

his or her criminal act

Criminologists have examined many theories

as to why a person becomes a criminal Since the

nineteenth century, biological theories have been

proposed that seek to link criminal behavior with

innate characteristics, yet these theories have

been strongly challenged by the scientific

com-munity With the development of modern

genetics, scientists have noted abnormalities in

the chromosomal structure of some people

A chromosome is the threadlike part of the

cell that carries hereditary information in the

form of genes The normal human genetic

complement consists of 23 pairs of

chromo-somes One of these pairs determines gender

Women have two X chromosomes, and men

usually have an X and a Y chromosome

However, in 1 in 500 to 1,000 live male births,

an individual has an extra Y chromosome This

XYY abnormality is often characterized by

tallness and severe acne and sometimes by

skeletal malformations and mental deficiency

With the discovery of the XYY abnormality

in 1961, some social scientists proposed a link

between the abnormality and aggressive and

impulsive behavior This “supermale”

syn-drome seemed confirmed when studies of

prison populations showed the presence of the

abnormality to be significantly higher than in

the general population

Armed with these studies, defense attorneys

sought to use the XYY chromosomal

abnor-mality as a criminal defense theory However,

the defense has never been successfully used in

the United States Though the abnormality can

be easily diagnosed using a blood test, the courts

have rejected the defense because of the lack of

conclusiveness of SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE regarding the theory of criminality

The legal community’s misgivings have been confirmed by subsequent studies of the general population, especially those in which affected individuals were observed from early childhood over a long period of time These studies have cast serious doubt on the validity of linking the chromosomal anomaly directly to behavioral abnormalities Numerous XYY individuals live normal lives as law-abiding citizens In the early twenty-first century, the XYY defense is com-pletely discredited and is very rarely used

XYZ AFFAIR The XYZ Affair was a diplomatic incident that almost led to war between the United States and France The scandal inflamed U.S public opinion and led to the passage of the ALIEN AND SEDITION ACTS of 1798 (1 Stat 570, 596)

Though the affair caused an unofficial naval war, the two countries were able to negotiate their differences and end their conflict in 1800

The affair took place during one of the Napoleonic wars between France and Great Britain The French regarded the United States

as a hostile nation, particularly after the signing

of Jay’s Treaty in 1794 This treaty settled some

of the problems that continued to cause friction between the United States and Great Britain after the peace treaty of 1783 that granted the colonies independence Consequently, President

JOHN ADAMS appointed Charles Pinckney minis-ter to France in 1796 in an attempt to ease French-U.S relations

After Charles Talleyrand, the French foreign minister, refused to recognize Pinckney, Adams appointed a commission to France, consisting

of Pinckney,JOHN MARSHALL, and Elbridge Gerry

Before official negotiations on a treaty to establish peaceful relations and normalize trade could occur, Talleyrand sent three French agents to meet with the commission members

The agents suggested that Talleyrand would agree to the treaty if he received from the United States a $250,000 bribe and France received a $10 million loan The commission refused, with Pinckney quoted as saying, “No!

No! Not a sixpence!”

Outraged, the commission sent a report to Adams, who inserted the letters X, Y, and Z in place of the agents’ names and forwarded the report to Congress Congress and the public

XYZ AFFAIR 479

Trang 3

were angered at the attempted BLACKMAIL An undeclared naval war took place between the two nations between 1798 and 1800 Anticipat-ing a declared war with France, Congress enacted the Alien and SEDITION Acts These internal security laws were aimed at French and Irish immigrants, who were thought to be supportive of France The acts lengthened the period of NATURALIZATION for ALIENS, authorized the president to expel any alien considered dangerous, permitted the detention of subjects of

an enemy nation, and limitedFREEDOM OF THE PRESS Talleyrand, unwilling to risk a declared war with the United States, sought an end to the dispute The next U.S delegation that was sent

to France was treated with appropriate respect, and the Treaty of Morfontaine, which restored

normal relations between France and the United States, was signed in 1800

The XYZ Affair also served as the basis for the first direct federal tax imposed on Amer-icans in 1798, essentially a property tax on land and slaves

FURTHER READINGS Finklestein, Paul, ed 2006 Encyclopedia of the American Nation Detroit: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Stinchcombe, William C 1980 The XYZ Affair Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.

Vaughan, Harold Cecil 1972 The XYZ Affair, 1797–98: The Diplomacy of the Adams Administration and an Unde-clared War with France New York: F Watts.

CROSS REFERENCES Virginia and Kentucky Resolves.

G A L E E N C Y C L O P E D I A O F A M E R I C A N L A W , 3 E

480 XYZ AFFAIR

Trang 4

YALTA AGREEMENT

British prime minister Winston Churchill, U.S

president FRANKLIN D ROOSEVELT, and Soviet

premier JOSEPH STALIN met from February 4

to 11, 1945, at Yalta, in the Crimea The

conference—the last attended by all three of

these leaders—produced an agreement

con-cerning the prosecution of the war against

Japan, the occupation of Germany, the structure

of theUNITED NATIONS, and the post–WORLD WAR II

fate of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary,

Romania, and Bulgaria The Yalta agreement

proved to be controversial, as many in the

United States criticized Roosevelt for

abandon-ing Eastern Europe to the Communists

Roosevelt went to Yalta seeking early Soviet

participation in the war against Japan Fearing

that Japan would not surrender easily, Roosevelt

promised Stalin the return of territories lost

following the Russo-Japanese War of 1905

Stalin agreed to declare war on Japan, but only

90 days after the surrender of Germany With

the surrender of Japan in August 1945, which

followed the dropping of nuclear bombs by the

United States on the cities of Hiroshima and

Nagasaki, the Soviet Union obtained the

promised territories after expending minimal

military effort

Roosevelt also sought Stalin’s approval of

the U.N Charter, which had already been

drafted Stalin had previously insisted that each

of the 16 Soviet republics be represented and

that the permanent members of the Security

Council retain a permanent VETOon all issues, not just those involving sanctions or threats to peace Roosevelt and Churchill objected to this proposal, and at Yalta, Stalin agreed to three seats for the Soviet Union in the General Assembly and a limited veto

The postwar status of Germany was also settled at Yalta Germany was to be divided into four zones of occupation by the three countries and France, as was the city of Berlin Germany was to have its industrial base rebuilt, but its armaments industries were to be abolished or confiscated The leaders also approved the creation of an international court to try German leaders as war criminals, setting the stage for the

NUREMBERG TRIALSand other denazification efforts The most troublesome issue was the fate of the Eastern European countries that Germany had conquered during the war The Soviet army occupied most of the territory, making it difficult for Churchill and Roosevelt to bargain with Stalin on this point It was agreed that interim governments in these countries would give way to democratically elected regimes as soon as practicable On Poland, Churchill and Roosevelt abandoned the London-based Polish government-in-exile, agreeing that members

of this group must work with the Soviet-dominated group with headquarters in Lublin, Poland The boundaries of Poland were altered

as well, with its eastern border following the Curzon Line and its western border expanded into former German territories

Y

Trang 5

In the aftermath of World War II, the results envisioned in the Yalta agreement on Eastern Europe proved illusory Communist regimes were established by the Soviet Union, accompa-nied by the destruction of democratic political groups The legacy of Yalta continued until the collapse of COMMUNISM and the emergence of democracy in the late 1980s and early 1990s

FURTHER READINGS Harbutt, Fraser 2009 Yalta 1945: Europe and America at the Crossroads New York: Cambridge Univ Press.

Yakovlev, Alexander, ed 1985 The Yalta Conference, 1945:

Lessons of History Moscow: Novosti Press Agency.

CROSS REFERENCES Roosevelt, Franklin Delano; Stalin, Joseph; World War II.

YEAR BOOKS Books of legal cases, or reporters, published annually in England from the thirteenth to the sixteenth century

The development of English COMMON LAW

was based on the law of the case Lawyers and courts relied on previous court decisions that involved similar issues of law and fact The law

of the case could not take hold, however, until cases were recorded, reported, and eventually published The English Year Books, which were created in about 1290, are the first example of a reporting system Though they were informal and often contained running commentary about the judges’ personalities and the lawyers’

quips, the Year Books were referred to increas-ingly by judges and lawyers

During the reign of King Edward I (1272-1307) legal materials began to be collected into separate books for each year During this early period the Year Books were extremely informal They contained accounts by anonymous scribes and law students of courtroom proceedings and arguments that helped explain the judicial decision The quality of the reports varied according to the abilities of the note takers Despite these shortcomings, the reports con-veyed basic procedural information to lawyers and students, but they stated fewRULES OF LAW EnglishLEGAL PUBLISHINGbegan in 1481 with the printing of the Year Book Until that time Year Books had been prepared and circulated in handwritten copies It was during this period that the Year Books became more professional and uniform They were published at the expense of the Crown, but they were not official reports of cases The printed versions were arranged by year, but it sometimes took two or three years after a case had been decided for it to

be reported

The compilation of Year Books ceased in

1535 during the reign of King Henry VIII, for reasons that remain unclear Thereafter court reports were issued in a different form by named reporters

Since the late nineteenth century, modern critical editions of the Year Books have been prepared by theSELDEN SOCIETY Legal historians have found the Year Books a rich source of information about law and life in medieval England

YELLOW DOG CONTRACT

An employment agreement whereby a worker promises not to join aLABOR UNIONor promises to resign from a union if he or she is already a member

Until the 1930s, employers were able to use

a variety of measures to prevent employees from joiningLABOR UNIONS One of the most effective was the yellow dog contract, which frequently forced employees to either sign an agreement not to join a union or be fired Courts upheld the legality of yellow dog contracts and frequently struck down state laws that sought to outlaw them The enactment of theWAGNER ACT

in 1935 (29 U.S.C.A § 151 et seq.) finally put an end to these types of agreements

(L-r) British Prime

Minister Winston

Churchill, U.S.

President Franklin D.

Roosevelt, and Soviet

Premier Joseph Stalin

meet in Yalta, in

the Crimea, in

February 1945.

RARE BOOKS AND

SPECIAL COLLECTIONS

DIVISION, LIBRARY OF

CONGRESS.

G A L E E N C Y C L O P E D I A O F A M E R I C A N L A W , 3 E

482 YEAR BOOKS

Trang 6

The U.S Supreme Court’s hostility to efforts

by government to outlaw the yellow dog

contract was rooted in the concept of “liberty

of contract.” Near the end of the nineteenth

century, the Court used the DUE PROCESS

provisions of the Fifth and Fourteenth

Amend-ments to the U.S Constitution to strike down

federal and state laws regulating business These

amendments provide that no government was

to “deprive any person of life, liberty, or

property, without due process of law.” The

Court interpreted this prohibition to include

the negotiating of terms of employment

be-tween an employer and an employee

Therefore, in Adair v United States, 208 U.S

161, 28 S Ct 277, 52 L Ed 436 (1908), the Court

struck down a federal law that protected union

members by prohibiting yellow dog contracts and

the discharge or blacklisting of employees for

union activities In his majority opinion Justice

JOHN HARLAN presumed that there was equal

bargaining power between an employer and an

employee, and that the law was an unreasonable

intrusion on personal liberty and property rights,

as guaranteed by theFIFTH AMENDMENT

When Kansas enacted a law prohibiting

yellow dog contracts, the Court declared the law

unconstitutional under the FOURTEENTH

AMEND-MENTas an infringement of freedom of contract

Coppage v Kansas, 236 U.S 1, 35 S Ct 240, 59

L Ed 441 (1915)

The Wagner Act of 1935 gave employees the

right to join unions and to bargain collectively

with their employers Congress outlawed the

yellow dog contract and other UNFAIR LABOR

PRACTICESon the part of employers, finding that

these practices were contrary to public policy

Existing yellow dog contracts were declared

unenforceable by the courts The Supreme

Court’s upholding of the constitutionality of

the Wagner Act inNLRB V.JONES&LAUGHLIN STEEL

CORP., 301 U.S 1, 57 S Ct 615, 81 L Ed 893

(1937), meant the end of the yellow dog

contract

FURTHER READINGS

Cushman, Barry 1992 “Doctrinal Synergies and Liberal

Dilemmas: The Case of the Yellow-Dog Contract ”

Supreme Court Review (annual).

Ernst, Daniel 1989 “The Yellow-Dog Contract and Liberal

Reform, 1917 –1932.” Labor History 30 (spring).

CROSS REFERENCES

Labor Law; Substantive Due Process.

YICK WO V HOPKINS

An 1896 U.S Supreme Court decision, Yick

Wo v Hopkins, 118 U.S 356, 6 S Ct 1064, 30 L

Ed 220 (1886), held that the unequal applica-tion of a law violates the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSEof theFOURTEENTH AMENDMENTto the U.S

Constitution

A law that is racially neutral on its face may

be deliberately administered in a discriminatory way, or it may have been enacted in order to disadvantage a racial minority In Yick Wo v

Hopkins, the Supreme Court stated for the first time that a state or municipal law that appears

to be fair on its face will be declared unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amend-ment because of its discriminatory purpose

Yick Wo, a native and subject of China, was convicted and imprisoned for violating

an ordinance of the city of San Francisco, California, which made it unlawful to maintain

a laundry “without having first obtained the consent of the board of supervisors, except the same be located in a building constructed either

of brick or stone.” The 1880 ordinance was neutral on its face, but its purpose and its administration appeared suspect to Yick Wo and other Chinese Most laundries in San Francisco were owned by Chinese and were constructed out of wood The few laundries owned by whites were located in brick build-ings At the time the ordinance was passed, Chinese immigration had brought around 75,000 Chinese to California, half of whom lived in San Francisco The white population became increasingly anti-Chinese and sought ways to control the Chinese population

In 1885 the San Francisco Board of Super-visors denied Yick Wo and 200 other Chinese laundry owners their licenses, even though their establishments had previously passed city inspections After he was denied his license, Yick Wo continued to operate his business He was eventually arrested and jailed for ten days for violating the ordinance More than 150 other Chinese laundry owners were also arrested for violating the ordinance

On appeal to the U.S Supreme Court, Yick

Wo argued that the ordinance violated the Fourteenth Amendment, as the law denied him equal protection of the laws He pointed out that only one-quarter of the laundries could operate under the ordinance, with 73 owned by non-Chinese and only one owned by a Chinese

YICK WO V HOPKINS 483

Trang 7

San Francisco contended the ordinance was a valid exercise of the POLICE POWERS granted by the U.S Constitution to cities and states

Justice STANLEY MATTHEWS, writing for a unanimous court, struck down the ordinance

Matthews looked past the neutral language to strike down the ordinance as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause He found that the division between wood and brick buildings was an “arbitrary line.”

Moreover, whatever the intent of the law may have been, the administration of the ordinance was carried out “with a mind so unequal and oppressive as to amount to a practical denial by the state” of equal protection of the laws

Matthews held that:

Though the law itself be fair on its face, and impartial in appliance, yet, if it is applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and an unequal hand, so as practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations be-tween persons in similar circumstances, mate-rial to their rights, the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition of the constitution

Because the unequal application of the ordinance furthered“unjust and illegal discrim-ination,” the Court ruled that the ordinance was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment

Yick Wo has become a central part of CIVIL RIGHTSjurisprudence If a law has a discrimina-tory purpose or is administered unequally, courts will apply the Fourteenth Amendment and strike down the law Yick Wo is also the source of modern civil rights DISPARATE IMPACT

cases, in which discrimination is established by statistical inequality rather than through proof

of intentional discrimination

FURTHER READINGS Chin, Gabriel J 2007 “Unexplainable on Grounds of Race:

Doubts about Yick Wo.” Arizona Legal Studies Working Paper No 30-07.

Kaylor, Dan 1980 “Orders that Wouldn't Wash: Historical Background of Yick Wo v Hopkins ” Lincoln Law Review 11 (spring).

Maltz, Earl M 1994 “The Federal Government and the Problem of Chinese Rights in the Era of the Fourteenth Amendment ” Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy

17 (winter).

YIELD Current return from an investment or expenditure

as a percentage of the price of investment or expenditure

The term yield is the proportionate rate that income from an investment bears to the total cost of the investment For example, a ten-dollar profit on a one hundred dollar investment represents a 10 percent yield Thus, a yield for stock dividends or bond interest paid will be expressed as a percentage of the current price A yield can also refer to the bond coupon orSTOCK DIVIDENDrate, divided by the purchase price There are several specific types of yields On bonds, a current yield is the annual interest paid, divided by the current market price of the bond

As interest rates fall, the market price of the bond rises; as they rise, bond prices fall The current yield reflects the actual rate of return on a bond For example, a 9.5 percent bond with a face value of $1,000 yields $95 per year If this bond is purchased on the secondary bond market for

$1,100, the interest will still be $95 per year, but the current yield will be reduced to 8.6 percent because the new owner paid more for the bond

A nominal yield is the annual income received from a fixed-income security, divided

by the face value of the security It is stated as a percentage figure For example, if a security with a face value of $5,000 were to generate $500 in income, the nominal yield would be 10 percent

On bonds, a yield to maturity is a complex calculation that reflects the overall rate of return

an investor would receive from a bond if the bond is held to maturity and the interest payments are reinvested at the same rate It takes into account the purchase price, the coupon yield, the time to maturity, and the time between interest payments

A net yield is the rate of return on an investment after deducting all costs, losses, and charges for investment A dividend yield is the current annual dividend, divided by the market price per share of stock.“Yield spread” refers to differences in yields between various issues of

SECURITIES

In the oldENGLISH LAWof real property, when

a tenant did a service for his landlord, that was referred to as a yield This is why older leases often utilize the term “yielding and paying” in reference to the reservation of rent

YORK-ANTWERP RULES

A group of directives relating to uniform bills of lading and governing the settlement of maritime losses among the several interests, including ship and cargo owners

G A L E E N C Y C L O P E D I A O F A M E R I C A N L A W , 3 E

484 YIELD

Trang 8

Maritime law includes international

agree-ments, national laws on shipping, and private

agreements voluntarily adhered to by the parties

involved in shipping contracts The York-Antwerp

Rules of General Average are the best known

example of such private agreements, as they

establish the rights and obligations of the parties

when cargo must be jettisoned from a ship

Under the law of general average, if cargo is

jettisoned in a successful effort to refloat a

grounded vessel, the owners of the vessel and

the cargo saved are required to absorb a

proportionate share of the loss, in order to

compensate the owner of the cargo that has

been singled out for sacrifice All participants in

the maritime venture contribute to offset the

losses incurred The law of general average

became an early form of marine insurance

The York-Antwerp Rules were first

promul-gated in 1890 and have been amended several

times, most recently in 1994 They are the result

of conferences of representatives of mercantile

interests from many countries The rules provide

uniform guidelines on the law of general average

that are included in private shipping agreements

and depend upon their voluntary acceptance by

the maritime community These international

rules ensure uniformity and determine the rights

and obligations of the parties

The rules are incorporated by reference into

most bills of lading (documents given by a

shipping company that list the goods accepted

for transport and sometimes list the terms of

the shipping agreement), contracts of

affreight-ment (a contract with a ship owner to hire the

ship, or part of it, for the carriage of goods), and

marine insurance policies

The York-Antwerp Rules attempt to cover

many types of expenses associated with an

imperiled ship For example, the rules provide

for recovery by the ship owner of the costs of

repair, loading and unloading cargo, and

main-taining the crew, if these expenses are necessary

for the safe completion of the voyage Claims are

generally made against the insurer of the cargo

and the ship owner’s insurance underwriters

FURTHER READINGS

Cooke, Julian, and Richard Cornah 2007 The Law of

General Average and the York-Antwerp Rules.13th ed.

West Yorkshire, U.K.: Sweet & Maxwell.

Fernandez, Charles and Anthony 1999 “Interpreting the

Rule of Interpretation In the York-Antwerp Rules.”

Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce 30 (July).

Kouladis, Nicholas 2006 Principles of Law Relating to International Trade New York: Springer.

CROSS REFERENCES Admiralty and Maritime Law; Shipping Law.

vYOUNG, OWEN D

Owen D Young was a prominent corporate lawyer and businessperson who played a major part in negotiating German reparations follow-ing WORLD WAR I His 1929 proposal to restructure reparations, called the Young Plan, was an attempt to relieve financial pressure on Germany and end active oversight of its economy by the United States, Great Britain, and France

Young was born on October 27, 1874, in Van Hornesville, New York He graduated from

St Lawrence University in 1894 and earned a law degree from Boston University in 1896 He later completed a doctorate in Hebrew literature

in 1923 from St Lawrence

Young practiced law in Boston from 1896 until 1913, when he moved to New York City

In 1913 Young’s handling of a case against a General Electric Company subsidiary brought

an invitation to become GE’s general counsel

By 1922 he had become chairman of the board

Owen D Young LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

MANAGERS[ARE]NO LONGER ATTORNEYS FOR STOCKHOLDERS,

THEY[ARE]

BECOMING TRUSTEES

OF AN INSTITUTION

—O WEN D Y OUNG

Trang 9

Always interested in the problems of the laboring man, he pushed for the adoption of employee STOCK OPTION plans and the use of unemployment insurance Under his guidance (and teaming with president Gerard Swope), GE shifted into the extensive manufacturing of home electrical appliances, establishing the company as a leader in this field and speeding the mass electrification of farms, factories and transportation systems within the United States

He was chairperson of the board of directors from 1922 to 1939 and again from 1942 to

1944 Young also organized Radio Corporation

of America (RCA) in 1919 and was its honorary chairperson from its inception until 1929 In the mid-1920s he helped found the National Broadcasting Company (NBC)

In 1924 Young and Charles G Dawes represented the United States at the post-World War I reparations conference The TREATY OF VERSAILLES had mandated that a Reparations Commission be formed to determine how much Germany was to pay the Allies for war destruction and to set the terms of payment The German government complained that the payment sched-ule was unrealistic In response, the U.S repre-sentatives helped formulate the Dawes Plan under which Germany was to make billions of dollars of reparations stretching over a period of years

The German economy prospered from 1924

to 1929 but it still could not make its annual reparations payment The Reparations Commis-sion, seeking to resolve the issue, appointed Young in 1929 to head a committee to develop a workable reparations plan Young played a major role in creating the proposal, which reduced German reparations to approximately $26 bil-lion, one-third the amount originally assessed in

1921 Payments were spread out over 58 years, ending in 1988, and were to be made to the new Bank for International Settlements The Young plan also called for the DISSOLUTION of the Reparations Commission and an end to Allied occupation of the Rhineland The German government quickly agreed to these terms Despite the more favorable terms, right-wing German opposition leaders campaigned against the Young Plan, seeing it as another attempt to humiliate Germany.ADOLF HITLERand his Nazi party demanded the government repudiate the war debt and the war-guilt clause

of Versailles upon which the debt was based Nevertheless, the plan was approved by the German Reichstag When Hitler came to power

in 1933, however, he refused to recognize the plan and repudiated all war debts, making the Young Plan a dead letter Young died on July

11, 1962, in St Augustine, Florida

FURTHER READINGS Case, Josephine Young, and Everett Needham 1984 Owen

D Young and American Enterprise: A Biography Boston: David R Godine.

Marks, Sally 2003 The Illusion of Peace: International Relations in Europe, 1918–1933 New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

CROSS REFERENCES Hitler, Adolf; Treaty of Versailles.

YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO V SAWYER

In Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co v Sawyer, 343 U.S 579, 72 S Ct 863, 96 L Ed 1153 (1952), the Supreme Court reviewed the constitutionality of

Owen D Young 1874–1962

1874 Born,

Van Hornesville, N.Y.

1913 Became general counsel for the General Electric (GE) Company

1896 Earned law degree from Boston University

1933 Hitler came to power in Germany and repudiated all war debts

1922–39 Served as chair of the board of directors of GE

1914–18 World War I

1962 Died,

St Augustine, Fla.

1919–33 Served on RCA's executive committee

1939–45 World War II

1950–53 Korean War

1961–73 Vietnam War

1900

1918 Treaty of Versailles ended World War I and laid out German reparations payments

1919 Organized Radio Corporation of America (RCA)

1924 Represented United States at Reparations Commission conference; helped construct the Dawes Plan

1929 Developed Young Plan to restructure Germany's reparations payments

◆ ◆

1947 Served on Truman's Commission

on Foreign Aid, which developed the Marshall Plan 1942–44 Returned to chairmanship of GE

G A L E E N C Y C L O P E D I A O F A M E R I C A N L A W , 3 E

486 YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO V SAWYER

Trang 10

an EXECUTIVE ORDER directing the secretary of

commerce to seize possession of the nation’s

steel mills during a labor dispute and keep them

operating while hostilities continued in the

KOREAN WAR Also known as the Steel Seizure

Case, Youngstown Sheet & Tube stands for the

proposition that the EXECUTIVE BRANCH has no

constitutional authority to seize possession of

private property, even if it is for public use

during times of national emergency because such

authority is vested in the lawmaking powers of

Congress

The case arose from a labor dispute between

American steel companies and their employees

over the terms of a collective bargaining

agreement that was under negotiation in 1951

Employees wanted higher wages, but

manage-ment protested that such increases could only

be met through drastic price hikes President

HARRY S TRUMAN opposed further price hikes

because the economy was already suffering from

inflation However, Truman feared that any

disruption in domestic steel production would

impede the American war effort in Korea,

which was entering its second year, and thus

imperil the safety of U.S troops

When negotiations between labor and

management reached an impasse, the

employ-ees’ representative, United Steelworkers of

America, C.I.O., announced its intention to

commence a nationwide strike on April 12,

1952, at 12:01A.M A few hours before the strike

was to begin, Truman issued Executive Order

10340, which commanded the secretary of

commerce, Charles Sawyer, to seize most of

the nation’s steel mills and keep them running

In carrying out this order, the secretary

directed the presidents of the seized steel

companies to serve as operating managers for

the U.S government Until directed otherwise,

each president was to operate his plant in

accordance with the rules and regulations

prescribed by the secretary While obeying these

orders under protest, the steel companies filed a

lawsuit in U.S District Court for the District of

Columbia, seeking declaratory relief to

invali-date the executive order and injunctive relief to

restrain its enforcement

On April 30, 1952, the district court issued a

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION immediately restraining

the secretary of commerce from continuing the

seizure and possession of the steel mills On that

same day, the U.S Court of Appeals for the

District of Columbia stayed the district court’s order on the grounds that resolution of such

an issue is more appropriate for the U.S

Supreme Court GrantingCERTIORARIthree days later, the Supreme Court decided the case on June 12, 1952

In a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court invalidated the executive order and affirmed the district court’s judgment JusticeHUGO BLACK

delivered the opinion of the Court The president’s power to issue the order, the Court said, derives, if at all, from an act of Congress or from the U.S Constitution There are no other sources forPRESIDENTIAL POWER, the Court wrote

The Court found that Truman had not acted pursuant to congressional authority Prior

to issuing the order, Truman had given Congress formal notice of the impending seizure However, neither house responded

The Court also observed that Congress had considered amending the LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT of 1947, 61 Stat 136, popularly known as the TAFT-HARTLEY ACT, to include a provision authorizing the seizure of steel mills

in times of national crisis Yet, Congress rejected the idea No other federal statutory authority existed, the Court stressed, from which presidential power to seize a private business could be fairly inferred

The Court next turned to the president’s constitutional powers Article II of the Consti-tution delegates certain enumerated powers to the executive branch Unlike Article I, which gives Congress a broad grant of authority to make all laws that are“necessary and proper” in exercising its legislative function, Article II limits the authority of the executive branch to narrowly specified powers

Consistent with Article II, the Court said, a president may recommend the enactment of a particular bill,VETOobjectionable legislation, and

“faithfully execute” laws that have been passed by both houses of Congress As commander in chief, thePRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATESis vested with ultimate responsibility for the nation’s armed forces However, the Court emphasized, the office of the president has no constitutional authority outside the language contained within the four corners of the Constitution

Lawyers for the executive branch had argued that the presidency carries with it certain inherent powers that may be reasonably in-ferred from the express provisions of the

YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO V SAWYER 487

Ngày đăng: 07/07/2014, 05:20

TỪ KHÓA LIÊN QUAN

🧩 Sản phẩm bạn có thể quan tâm