翻訳と辞書
Words near each other
・ United States v. Cleveland Indians Baseball Co.
・ United States v. Clintwood Elkhorn Mining Co.
・ United States v. Colgate & Co.
・ United States v. Comstock
・ United States v. Congress of Industrial Organizations
・ United States v. Constantine
・ United States v. Continental Can Co.
・ United States v. Cook
・ United States v. Correll
・ United States v. Cors
・ United States v. Cotterman
・ United States v. Councilman
・ United States v. Creek Nation
・ United States v. Crimmins
・ United States v. Cruikshank
United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp.
・ United States v. Darby Lumber Co.
・ United States v. Davila
・ United States v. Davis
・ United States v. Davis (1962)
・ United States v. Davis (2014)
・ United States v. Detroit & Cleveland Navigation Co.
・ United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co.
・ United States v. Dinitz
・ United States v. Dion
・ United States v. Dominguez Benitez
・ United States v. Dotterweich
・ United States v. Dougherty
・ United States v. Drayton
・ United States v. Drescher


Dictionary Lists
翻訳と辞書 辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ]
スポンサード リンク

United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. : ウィキペディア英語版
United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp.

''United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp.'', 299 U.S. 304 (1936), was a United States Supreme Court case involving principles of both governmental regulation of business and the supremacy of the executive branch of the federal government to conduct foreign affairs. The Supreme Court concluded not only that foreign affairs power was vested in the national government as a whole but also that the President of the United States had "plenary" powers in the foreign affairs field that was not dependent upon congressional delegation.
==Background==
Congress, acting by joint resolution, had authorized the President to place an embargo on arms shipments to South American countries engaged in the Chaco War. Acting pursuant to the resolution, President Franklin Roosevelt proclaimed such an embargo. When Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. was indicted for violating the embargo through the sale of bombers and fighter planes to Bolivia, it defended itself on the grounds that the embargo and the proclamation were void because Congress had improperly delegated legislative power to the executive branch by leaving what was essentially a legislative determination to the President's "unfettered discretion."
In 1936, the defendant Curtiss-Wright Corporation was charged with illegally sending arms of war to Bolivia prior to the revocation of the first proclamation.〔United States v. Curtiss-Wright, 299 U.S. 304 (1936).〕

抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)
ウィキペディアで「United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp.」の詳細全文を読む



スポンサード リンク
翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース

Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.