US GOV AUDIO

The Little v. Burim 1804 Supreme Court case established limits on presidential power during wartime and emphasized the judiciary's role in checking executive authority. The case involved the illegal seizure of a Danish ship during the quasi-French War. The Supreme Court ruled that the seizure was unlawful because Congress had only authorized specific seizures of ships bound for France. The case affirmed Congress's supremacy over executive power in war-making and rejected claims of inherent presidential war powers. It also established the judiciary's duty to ensure executive actions comply with laws enacted by Congress and the Constitution's limits on declaring war. The case shaped the balance of powers for military forces, requiring Congressional approval for war initiation and defining its scope. The War Powers Resolution in 1973 further restricted unilateral executive powers. The case also affirmed the Supreme Court's authority to review executive actions during emergencies, serving Hello, everyone. Today I will be talking about the Little v. Burim 1804 Supreme Court case. The Supreme Court case Little v. Burim in 1804 established pivotal limitations on presidential power during wartime and asserted the judiciary's role in checking executive authority. The case arose amid the quasi-French War when the Congress authorized seizing American ships sailing to French ports. Acting on executive orders, U.S. Naval Captain unlawfully seized a Danish ship, the Flying Fish, mistakenly believing it was bound for France. The ship owner sued for the damages. In an 8-0 landmark decision, the Supreme Court ruled the seizure was illegal since Congress had only authorized certain seizures of ships that were 100% sailing for France, not just random ships. Even though the President issued broad seizure orders, those could not override legislative authority. Little v. Burim affirmed Congressional supremacy over executive power in war-making. The Court rejected inherent presidential war powers, stating the President could only act according to laws enacted by Congress. This rebuffed more expansive executive power claims during this conflict at that time. While seemingly a minor dispute, the ruling asserted pivotal checks and balances on the presidency during certain armed conflicts. It established the judiciary's duty to objectively determine if executive actions follow Congress's laws and the Constitution's limits to declare war. This judicial scrutiny over presidential war authority has continued through certain conflicts such as Vietnam and the most recent global war on terror. The case said in early precedence that war powers are vested primarily with Congress per the Constitution, not as inherited as executive authority. Little v. Burim shaped the balance of powers for military forces thereafter, requiring Congressional approval to initiate and define a war scope and to declare war. The War Powers Resolution in 1973 further codified restrictions on unilateral executive powers not authorized by Congress. Beyond war authority, the case affirmed the Supreme Court's reviewing of executive actions even during emergencies. This judicial threat remains a restraining influence on current presidents today. So essentially what this court case did is that it makes sure that there's even more checks and balances for the president in case they wanted to declare war or put certain constraints on a war that might be taking place. So that way like no one branch has over authority over the rest of everyone else when it comes to like declaring war. That's pretty much what I took away from it and I hope you guys had a good time with my speech. Thank you.