Key Data: A new bill would allow President Obama to seize control of private web networks and Internet information in a state of “emergency” he also declares. Take Home: Presidents have never been allowed to nationalize private property, and they should absolutely not be allowed to nationalize information, the most private of property.
When unionized steel workers scheduled a strike in the middle of the Korean War, President Truman nationalized the steel mills to maintain supply for the invasion. Then, in 1952, the Supreme Court determined in the ensuing lawsuit, Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, that the President cannot act outside of his “aggregate” constitutional powers absent an explicit Congressional grant of power.
At its core, Youngstown is a discussion on the “separation of powers” in our constitutional republic. Two branches declared unequivocally in the not-too-distant past that while the President may do many things, he cannot decide when and how to seize industrial properties.
Fast-forward 50 years. Industry has changed, but the executive instinct to grab power has not. This week, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) released the edited version of a bill that would permit President Obama to seize control of private Internet networks during an “emergency.” This spring, the House of Representatives approved a bill that grants the President’s prerogative to declare when an appropriate “cybersecurity emergency” mandates information seizure.
Privacy issues abound under this bill, but the more ominous implication lies with executive control of both the declaration of “emergency” and the benefit from nationalizing private networks. In its short tenure, President Obama’s White House has already manipulated information channels, recently brazenly asking Americans to tattle on blogs that “spread disinformation” about the administration’s pet projects.
In addition to White House information micromanagement, we face potential swine flu hypertransmission (which elicited “emergency” classification this April), and continued strained Middle East relations. In other words, a variety of emergencies loom for America that could justify such a seizure. But this is not a constitutional approach.
Four Justices dissented in Youngstown, preferring that the President be permitted to mitigate emergency by nationalizing private property. That the bill required a dramatic makeover after passing the House indicates that Presidential seizure remains controversial.
Do we really want to nationalize the mills? 1952 relied on steel production, but executive control of information is a much more sensitive beast. “Emergency” lurks very close to the surface today. With a united government, flaccid checks and balances, and a complacent media reluctant to discipline its favored executive, are we ready to hand over information?
