299 U.S. 304 (1936)
An indictment was returned on January 27, 1936.1 The first count charged that appellees conspired beginning May 29, 1934, to sell fifteen machine guns in the United States to Bolivia, a country then engaged in armed conflict in the Chaco.2 The sales allegedly violated the Joint Resolution of Congress approved May 28, 1934, and the presidential proclamation issued the same day.3
The Joint Resolution stated that if the President found the prohibition of arms sales might contribute to peace and if he consulted with other American Republics and secured their cooperation, he could proclaim the prohibition effective.4 It then became unlawful to sell arms to the countries in the Chaco conflict.5
President Roosevelt issued the proclamation on May 28, 1934.6 He declared that he had made the required findings and that the prohibition applied to Bolivia and Paraguay.7
On November 14, 1935, the President revoked the proclamation.8 The revocation stated that the prohibition was no longer necessary but expressly preserved all penalties, forfeitures, and liabilities already incurred.9
Appellees demurred to the indictment.10 They argued that the joint resolution effected an invalid delegation of legislative power, that the President had failed to find essential jurisdictional facts, and that the revocation ended any liability.11
The district court sustained the demurrers on the delegation ground but overruled them on the other two grounds.12 The government appealed directly to the Supreme Court under the Criminal Appeals Act.13
Whether the Joint Resolution effects an invalid delegation of legislative power to the executive?14
The federal government's powers over foreign or external affairs differ fundamentally from those over domestic or internal affairs in both origin and nature.15 The former were not carved from state powers but transmitted to the United States as a collective entity.16 In the external realm the President possesses broad discretion as the sole organ of the nation.17 Congress may therefore delegate authority under standards more general than those permissible for internal legislation.18
No. The Joint Resolution aims exclusively at a situation entirely external to the United States by prohibiting arms sales to countries engaged in the Chaco conflict.19 The indictment charges appellees with conspiring beginning May 29, 1934, to sell fifteen machine guns to Bolivia in violation of the Joint Resolution and the May 28, 1934 proclamation.20 The resolution conditions operation on the President's finding that prohibition may contribute to peace and on consultation with American Republics, findings the proclamation recites as made.21 Longstanding legislative practice from the Act of June 4, 1794 onward has granted the President comparable broad authority in foreign affairs without narrow standards, and that practice confirms the constitutional validity of the delegation here.22
The Joint Resolution does not effect an invalid delegation of legislative power to the executive.23
Related opinions on this issue
Justice McReynolds dissented from the majority. He expressed the view that the district court had reached the correct conclusion when it sustained the demurrers to the indictment. In his opinion the judgment of the district court should therefore be affirmed rather than reversed.24
Whether the Joint Resolution never became effective because of the failure of the President to find essential jurisdictional facts?25
The President's proclamation must contain findings that track the Joint Resolution's requirements.26 Those requirements include a determination that prohibition of arms sales may contribute to reestablishment of peace.27 The proclamation must also recite that the President has consulted with other American Republics and received assurances of cooperation from such governments as he deemed necessary.28
No. The May 28, 1934 proclamation recites verbatim that the President found the prohibition may contribute to peace and that he consulted with other American Republics and received the required assurances of cooperation.29 The proclamation expressly made the prohibition applicable to Bolivia and Paraguay.30 These recitals satisfy every jurisdictional prerequisite set forth in the Joint Resolution.31 The resolution itself contains no fatal uncertainty or indefiniteness that would prevent it from taking effect.32
The Joint Resolution became effective because the President made the required findings of essential jurisdictional facts.33
Whether the second proclamation operated to put an end to the alleged liability under the joint resolution?34
Revocation of a presidential proclamation does not repeal the underlying Joint Resolution.35 It does not extinguish liability for violations committed while the first proclamation remained in force.36 The resolution continues as law for antecedent periods even after it ceases to govern future conduct.37
No. The November 14, 1935 proclamation revoked the earlier proclamation but expressly preserved all penalties, forfeitures, and liabilities incurred under the original proclamation and resolution.38 The indictment was returned January 27, 1936, for conduct beginning May 29, 1934, during the period the first proclamation was operative.39 The revocation merely removed the condition for future operation and did not abrogate the resolution's force with respect to past offenses.40
The second proclamation did not operate to put an end to the alleged liability under the joint resolution.41