to the President in violation of the non-delegation doctrine? Was the President required by considerations of due process to make findings of fact in support of the proclamation? Did the revocation of the May 1934 proclamation eliminate the penalty for its violation? Decision In a 7–1 decision authored by Justice George Sutherland, the Court ruled that the U.S. government, through the President, is categorically allowed great foreign affairs powers that are independent of the US Constitution: The Constitution does not explicitly state that all ability to conduct foreign policy is vested in the President, but the Court concluded that such power is given implicitly since the executive of a sovereign nation is by its very nature empowered to conduct foreign affairs. The Court found "sufficient warrant for the broad discretion vested in the President to determine whether the enforcement of the statute will have a beneficial effect upon the reestablishment of peace in the affected countries." In other words, the President is better suited to determine the actions and the policies that best serve the nation's interests abroad: By contrast, Congress lacks such an inherent role under the Constitution, which accords broad discretion to the President alone because of the vastness and the complexity of international relations. Legacy The ruling not only upheld export limitations on the grounds of national security but also established the broader principle of executive supremacy in national security and in foreign affairs; this was one of the reasons advanced in the 1950s for the nearly successful attempt to add the Bricker Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court has not recognized the full scope of executive power suggested by Justice Sutherland's sweeping language; consequently, it has sometimes presented contradictory rulings about foreign policy powers between the President and the Congress. For example, Reagan v. Wald (1984), established that congressional authorization may be necessary to legitimize many executive acts: Citing Curtiss-Wright, the Court upheld the constitutionality of the president's regulations restricting travel to Cuba expressly on the grounds that they had been authorized by Congress. On the other hand, in Federal Energy Administration v. Algonquin SNG, Inc. (1976), the Court validated presidential restrictions on oil imports based on the very broad congressional language that delegated apparently unlimited regulatory authority to the executive branch. Despite its controversy, Curtiss-Wright is among the Supreme Court's most influential decisions. Most cases involving conflicts between the executive and legislative branches involve