FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   288   289   290   291   292   293   294   295   296   297   298   299   300   301   302   303   304   305   306   307   308   309   310   311   312  
313   314   315   316   317   318   319   320   321   322   323   324   325   326   327   328   329   330   331   332   333   334   335   336   337   >>   >|  
nstitutional invasion of private rights. Shortly after the first world war, it sustained, by a narrow margin, a rent control law for the District of Columbia, which not merely limited the rents which might be charged but which also gave the existing tenants the right to continue in occupancy of their dwellings at their own option, provided they paid rent and performed other stipulated conditions. The Court, while conceding that ordinarily such legislation would transcend constitutional limitations, declared that "a public exigency will justify the legislature in restricting property rights in land to a certain extent without compensation. * * * A limit in time, to tide over a passing trouble, well may justify a law that could not be upheld as a permanent change."[1304] During World War II an apartment house owner who complained that the rentals allowed by the Office of Price Administration did not afford a "fair return" on the property was told by the Court that, "a nation which can demand the lives of its men and women in the waging of * * * war is under no constitutional necessity of providing a system of price control * * * which will assure each landlord a 'fair return' on his property."[1305] Moreover, such rentals may be established without a prior hearing because "national security might not be able to afford the luxuries of litigation and the long delays which preliminary hearings traditionally have entailed. * * * Where Congress has provided for judicial review after the regulations or orders have been made effective it has done all that due process under the war emergency requires."[1306] The more specific clauses of the Bill of Rights yield less readily, however, to the impact of a war emergency. In United States _v._ Cohen Grocery Company,[1307] the Court held that a statute which penalized the making of "'any unjust or unreasonable rate or charge in handling * * * any necessaries,'" was void on the ground that it set up no "ascertainable standard of guilt" and so was "repugnant to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments * * * which require due process of law and that persons accused of crime shall be adequately informed of the nature and cause of the accusation."[1308] PERSONAL LIBERTY IN WARTIME That the power of Congress to punish seditious utterances in time of war is limited by the First Amendment was assumed by the Supreme Court in the series of cases[1309] in which it affirmed convictions for violation of
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   288   289   290   291   292   293   294   295   296   297   298   299   300   301   302   303   304   305   306   307   308   309   310   311   312  
313   314   315   316   317   318   319   320   321   322   323   324   325   326   327   328   329   330   331   332   333   334   335   336   337   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

property

 

constitutional

 
justify
 

Congress

 
process
 

provided

 

emergency

 
return
 

rentals

 

afford


limited

 

control

 

rights

 
requires
 

series

 

Supreme

 
assumed
 

Amendment

 

utterances

 

seditious


readily
 

impact

 
Rights
 
specific
 

clauses

 
effective
 

hearings

 

traditionally

 

violation

 

entailed


preliminary

 

delays

 

luxuries

 
litigation
 

convictions

 

orders

 

regulations

 

affirmed

 

judicial

 

review


States

 

PERSONAL

 
repugnant
 

LIBERTY

 

ascertainable

 

standard

 

accusation

 

adequately

 

informed

 
accused