Instructions:

Step One: Locate the syllogisms in the following excerpts from three famous United States Supreme Court decisions. The "Background Excerpt" is only to aid in your general understanding of the case. To identify the syllogism in each case, focus only on the "Excerpt from the Court's Decision.

Step Two: Put each of the syllogisms into standard form: State the major premise, the minor premise, and the conclusion. Note: They may not appear in the appropriate order in the decision. Fill in the missing premise or conclusion if it is an enthymeme.

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer

343 U.S. 579 (1952)

Background Excerpt: We are asked to decide whether the President was acting within his constitutional power when he issued an order directing the Secretary of Commerce to take possession of and operate most of the Nation's steel mills. The mill owners argue that the President's order amounts to lawmaking, a legislative function which the Constitution has expressly confided to the Congress and not to the President. The Government's position is that the order was made on findings of the President that his action was necessary to avert a national catastrophe which would inevitably result from a stoppage of steel production, and that in meeting this grave emergency the President was acting within the aggregate of his constitutional powers as the Nation's Chief Executive and the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States.

Excerpt from the Court's Decision: The President's power, if any, to issue the order must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself. There is no . . . act of Congress to which our attention has been directed from which such a power can fairly be implied.. . . The Constitution limits his functions in the lawmaking process to the recommending of laws he thinks wise and the vetoing of laws he thinks bad.

Syllogism

Major Premise:

Minor Premise:

Conclusion: