313:
289:
301:
100:
Nonetheless, "there is considerable evidence that the framers of the
Constitution themselves could not agree on the meaning or significance of constitutional language defining the appointment and removal powers of the executive branch". In
47:
Congress ultimately enacted three departmental acts "that contained nearly identical language", none of which contained language expressly granting the
President removal power. Nonetheless, one of those acts included a proviso urged by
52:
that many scholars believe "was meant to imply recognition that the
Secretary would be removable by the President at will". Justices of the Supreme Court and legal scholars continue to debate the legal significance of the decision.
109:
challenged
Roberts's characterization of the Decision of 1789, stating that "he best view is that the First Congress 'was deeply divided' on the President's removal power, and 'never squarely addressed' the central issue here".
39:
at will. It has been called "the first significant legislative construction of the
Constitution". The debate centered around "a bill that would create a Department of Foreign Affairs"—the precursor to the
238:
John
Marshall, The Life of George Washington 200 (1807) (stating the Decision "has ever been considered as a full expression of the sense of the legislature" that the President has full removal powers).
272:
Seila, 140 S. Ct. at 2230 (Kagan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (quoting
Saikrishna Prakash, New Light on the Decision of 1789, 91 CORNELL L. REV. 1021, 1072 (2006)).
84:
65:
stated that the
Decision of 1789 construed the Constitution as placing full executive removal power with the President. This view was supported by Chief Justice
343:
91:
97:
to support his construction of the
President's removal power. Thus, it has been used as support in two Supreme Court cases that set precedent.
28:
209:
358:
353:
79:, writing for the majority, used the Decision of 1789 as support for broad presidential removal powers. More recently, Chief Justice
61:
Some of the United States' leading figures have used the decision as support for presidential removal power. Writing as
Pacificus,
24:
333:
151:
338:
41:
173:
36:
124:
119:
348:
279:
32:
229:
Pacificus No. 1, reprinted in 15 The Papers of Alexander Hamilton 33, 40 (Harold C. Syrett ed., 1969).
71:
201:
44:—and which branch of government would have the power to remove officers from that department.
317:
23:
refers to a month-long constitutional debate that occurred during the first session of the
8:
62:
305:
76:
261:
History and Executive Removal Power: Morrison v. Olson and Separation of Powers
327:
66:
49:
202:"Of Angels, Pins, and For-Cause Removal: A Requiem for the Passive Virtues"
80:
106:
300:
293:
288:
86:
Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
277:
93:
Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
56:
325:
247:Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 161 (1926).
344:Article Two of the United States Constitution
206:The University of Chicago Law Review Online
69:in his biography of George Washington. In
35:granted the president the power to remove
149:
326:
263:, 11 Campbell L. Rev. 175, 176 (1989).
199:
25:United States House of Representatives
255:
253:
195:
193:
145:
143:
141:
139:
152:"New Light on the Decision of 1789"
13:
57:Debate over constitutional meaning
14:
370:
359:United States Department of State
250:
190:
136:
354:United States constitutional law
311:
299:
287:
212:from the original on 2020-08-28
266:
241:
232:
223:
166:
16:American constitutional debate
1:
130:
37:officers of the United States
200:Mashaw, Seila (2020-08-27).
150:Prakash, Saikrishna (2006).
7:
125:Tenure of Office Act (1867)
120:Tenure of Office Act (1820)
113:
10:
375:
334:1st United States Congress
83:used the decision in both
33:United States Constitution
339:1789 in New York (state)
72:Myers v. United States
174:"The Removal Power"
42:Department of State
63:Alexander Hamilton
349:Political debates
366:
316:
315:
314:
304:
303:
292:
291:
283:
273:
270:
264:
257:
248:
245:
239:
236:
230:
227:
221:
220:
218:
217:
197:
188:
187:
185:
184:
170:
164:
163:
147:
75:, Chief Justice
21:Decision of 1789
374:
373:
369:
368:
367:
365:
364:
363:
324:
323:
322:
312:
310:
298:
286:
278:
276:
271:
267:
259:John L. Gedid,
258:
251:
246:
242:
237:
233:
228:
224:
215:
213:
198:
191:
182:
180:
172:
171:
167:
148:
137:
133:
116:
77:William H. Taft
59:
17:
12:
11:
5:
372:
362:
361:
356:
351:
346:
341:
336:
321:
320:
308:
296:
275:
274:
265:
249:
240:
231:
222:
189:
165:
156:Cornell L. Rev
134:
132:
129:
128:
127:
122:
115:
112:
58:
55:
27:as to whether
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
371:
360:
357:
355:
352:
350:
347:
345:
342:
340:
337:
335:
332:
331:
329:
319:
318:United States
309:
307:
302:
297:
295:
290:
285:
284:
281:
269:
262:
256:
254:
244:
235:
226:
211:
207:
203:
196:
194:
179:
175:
169:
161:
157:
153:
146:
144:
142:
140:
135:
126:
123:
121:
118:
117:
111:
108:
104:
98:
96:
94:
89:
87:
82:
78:
74:
73:
68:
67:John Marshall
64:
54:
51:
50:James Madison
45:
43:
38:
34:
30:
26:
22:
268:
260:
243:
234:
225:
214:. Retrieved
205:
181:. Retrieved
177:
168:
159:
155:
102:
99:
92:
85:
81:John Roberts
70:
60:
46:
20:
18:
107:Elena Kagan
29:Article Two
328:Categories
216:2021-11-30
183:2021-12-03
178:Justia Law
131:References
105:, Justice
103:Seila Law
306:Politics
210:Archived
114:See also
280:Portals
162:: 1021.
31:of the
95:(2020)
88:(2010)
90:and
19:The
294:Law
330::
252:^
208:.
204:.
192:^
176:.
160:91
158:.
154:.
138:^
282::
219:.
186:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
