Upon an historical examination of the subject, the Court finds that the action of the First Congress, in 1789, touching the Bill to establish a Department of Foreign Affairs, was a clean-cut and deliberate construction of the Constitution as vesting in the President alone the power to remove officers, inferior as well as superior, appointed by him with the consent of the Senate that this construction was acquiesced in by all branches of the Government for 73 years, and that subsequent attempts of Congress, through the Tenure of Office Act of March 2, 1867, and other acts of that period, to reverse the construction of 1789 by subjecting the President's power to remove executive officers appointed by him and confirmed by the Senate to the control of the Senate or lodge such power elsewhere in the Government were not acquiesced in, but their validity was denied by the Executive whenever any real issue over it arose. A contemporaneous legislative exposition of the Constitution when the founders of our Government and framers of the Constitution were actively participating in public affairs, acquiesced in for many years, fixes the meaning of the provisions so construed. "but Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officersĪs they may think proper in the President alone, in the courts of law or in the heads of departments,"ĭoes not enable Congress to regulate the removal of inferior officers appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The power of removal is an incident of the power to appoint but such incident does not extend the Senate's power of checking appointments, to removals. Removal of executive officials from office is an executive function the power to remove, like the power to appoint, is part of "the Executive power," - a conclusion which is confirmed by the obligation "to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Pp. It is a canon of interpretation that real effect should be given to all the words of the Constitution. II, § 2, which blend action by the legislative branch, or by part of it, in the work of the Executive, are limitations upon this general grant of the Executive power which are to be strictly construed, and not to be extended by implication. II, § 1, of the Constitution that "the Executive power shall be vested in a President" is a grant of the power, and not merely a naming of a department of the government. The President is empowered by the Constitution to remove any executive officer appointed by him by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and this power is not subject in its exercise to the assent of the Senate, nor can it be made so by an act of Congress. Is unconstitutional in its attempt to make the President's power of removal dependent upon consent of the Senate. "Postmasters of the first, second and third classes shall be appointed and may be removed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and shall hold their offices for four years unless sooner removed or suspended according to law," Section 6 of the Act of July 12, 1876, providing that Held that the plaintiff was not guilty of laches. No notice of the removal, nor any nomination of a successor, had been sent in the meantime to the Senate whereby his case could have been brought before that body, and the commencement of suit was within a month after the ending of its last session preceding the expiration of the four years. ![]() ![]() Three months before his four-year term expired, having pursued no other occupation and derived no compensation for other service in the interval, began suit in the Court of Claims for salary since removal. A postmaster who was removed from office petitioned the President and the Senate committee on Post Offices for a hearing on any charges filed protested to the Post Office Department and,
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |