The Conservative Principle

[Slartibartfast]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Laws applied
U.S. Const. Article II, Section 2
Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926), was a United States Supreme Court decision ruling that the President has the exclusive power to remove executive branch officials, and does not need the approval of the Senate or any other legislative body.

In 1920, Frank S. Myers, a First-Class Postmaster in Portland, Oregon, was removed from office by President Woodrow Wilson. An 1876 federal law provided that "Postmasters of the first, second, and third classes shall be appointed and may be removed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate." Myers argued that his dismissal violated this law, and he was entitled to back pay for the unfilled portion of his four-year term.

Chief Justice William Howard Taft, writing for the Court, noted that the Constitution does mention the appointment of officials, but is silent on their dismissal. An examination of the notes of the Constitutional Convention, however, showed that this silence was intentional: the Convention did discuss the dismissal of executive-branch staff, and believed it was implicit in the Constitution that the President did hold the exclusive power to remove his staff, whose existence was an extension of the President's own authority.

The Court therefore found that the statute was unconstitutional, for it violated the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches. In reaching this decision, it also expressly found the Tenure of Office Act, which had imposed a similar requirement on other Presidential appointees and played a key role in the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson, to have been invalid; it had been repealed by Congress some years before this decision.

1926.. that was before Watergate I recall. Fairly sure.

So Saturday night massacre II is what will happen. And though the President has the duty to protect the reputation of his branch..

But only after Trump repeals the protections for special councils that have changed in format over time but were initialized because of Watergate and Nixon. Or has Rod or a successor do it. I can't recall the date but I recall my cousin mentioning at Christmas that the original Watergate specific legislation regarding special prosecutors lapsed regarding this. This is what kept Reagan in check with Iran Contra etc.

I love how their mind works. It is like with the bible, if you can't get the answer you want due to evolution of practice and law (new testament), go originalist/old testament and kill em all.

 

[piezoe]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Laws applied
U.S. Const. Article II, Section 2
Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926), was a United States Supreme Court decision ruling that the President has the exclusive power to remove executive branch officials, and does not need the approval of the Senate or any other legislative body.

In 1920, Frank S. Myers, a First-Class Postmaster in Portland, Oregon, was removed from office by President Woodrow Wilson. An 1876 federal law provided that "Postmasters of the first, second, and third classes shall be appointed and may be removed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate." Myers argued that his dismissal violated this law, and he was entitled to back pay for the unfilled portion of his four-year term.

Chief Justice William Howard Taft, writing for the Court, noted that the Constitution does mention the appointment of officials, but is silent on their dismissal. An examination of the notes of the Constitutional Convention, however, showed that this silence was intentional: the Convention did discuss the dismissal of executive-branch staff, and believed it was implicit in the Constitution that the President did hold the exclusive power to remove his staff, whose existence was an extension of the President's own authority.

The Court therefore found that the statute was unconstitutional, for it violated the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches. In reaching this decision, it also expressly found the Tenure of Office Act, which had imposed a similar requirement on other Presidential appointees and played a key role in the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson, to have been invalid; it had been repealed by Congress some years before this decision.

I hesitate to point out, because it will annoy you, that in 1926 the head of the Postal Service was a Cabinet position, the Post Master General.

And to further annoy you I shall point out that though you would want the law frozen in time since 1792, it is not:

Myers seemed to grant the president complete freedom to remove not only postmasters, but also officials throughout the executive branch—only judges appeared off limits. In 1933 President Franklin Roosevelt tested this freedom by firing William E. Humphrey from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) because of policy differences. Under the terms of the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914, members of the FTC were supposed to serve seven-year terms that could be revoked only for infractions involving "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office." Though Humphrey died in 1934, the executor of his estate sued for lost wages and the case went to the Supreme Court. In Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935), the Court unanimously voted in favor of Humphrey and limited the president's removal power to only those officials who immediately served him, such as White House aides. Congress, the Court ruled, could legally restrict the president's ability to remove anyone except "purely executive officers."
​

I am intentionally not giving you the link, because it would be good practice for you to learn to find these thing entirely on your own without my help. Just part of the growing up process.

 

[Buy1Sell2]

I hesitate to point out, because it will annoy you, that in 1926 the head of the Postal Service was a Cabinet position, the Post Master General.

And to further annoy you I shall point out that though you would want the law frozen in time since 1792, it is not:

Myers seemed to grant the president complete freedom to remove not only postmasters, but also officials throughout the executive branch—only judges appeared off limits. In 1933 President Franklin Roosevelt tested this freedom by firing William E. Humphrey from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) because of policy differences. Under the terms of the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914, members of the FTC were supposed to serve seven-year terms that could be revoked only for infractions involving "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office." Though Humphrey died in 1934, the executor of his estate sued for lost wages and the case went to the Supreme Court. In Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935), the Court unanimously voted in favor of Humphrey and limited the president's removal power to only those officials who immediately served him, such as White House aides. Congress, the Court ruled, could legally restrict the president's ability to remove anyone except "purely executive officers."
​

I am intentionally not giving you the link, because it would be good practice for you to learn to find these thing entirely on your own without my help. Just part of the growing up process.

FTC is an independent agency and is not covered by the president's ability to fire subordinates except for cause.

 

[Buy1Sell2]

I hesitate to point out, because it will annoy you, that in 1926 the head of the Postal Service was a Cabinet position, the Post Master General.

And to further annoy you I shall point out that though you would want the law frozen in time since 1792, it is not:

Myers seemed to grant the president complete freedom to remove not only postmasters, but also officials throughout the executive branch—only judges appeared off limits. In 1933 President Franklin Roosevelt tested this freedom by firing William E. Humphrey from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) because of policy differences. Under the terms of the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914, members of the FTC were supposed to serve seven-year terms that could be revoked only for infractions involving "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office." Though Humphrey died in 1934, the executor of his estate sued for lost wages and the case went to the Supreme Court. In Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935), the Court unanimously voted in favor of Humphrey and limited the president's removal power to only those officials who immediately served him, such as White House aides. Congress, the Court ruled, could legally restrict the president's ability to remove anyone except "purely executive officers."
​

You conveniently left out the part about the FTC being an independent agency created by Congreff and therefore the president could not fire people except for cause. The part about White House aides is certainly not part of this except where they would be FTC employees. Very disingenuous of you to put this forth in this manner. None of this applies whatsoever to Myers, nor does it contradict or reverse Myers.

 

[piezoe]

Some Republican lawmakers are favoring legislation that would prevent President Trump from firing Robert Mueller. If passed, this would be unconstitutional at it's core.

You apparently need reminding that it is your incorrect statement above that we are so generously calling your attention to.

 

[Buy1Sell2]

You apparently need reminding that it is your incorrect statement above that we are so generously calling your attention to.

I've already proven that what I stated was correct. It is you that is having difficulty with the truth because it doesn't fit your narrative.----You can't handle the truth---

 

[Buy1Sell2]

The Democrats filed suit against Russia, The Trump Campaign and Wikileaks over this faux collusion narrative. They just won't let it go. The idea is they will drown The Trump administration in paperwork and motions and thus disrupt this presidency. But, this will backfire and is actually the most stupid thing that they can do. There is a thing called discovery in which the defense will be able to open and see a lot of facts that Dems really don't want out there. ---I am delighted.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

You can't handle the truth

This from the guy who can't even recognize it.

 

[Optionpro007]

 

[Buy1Sell2]

The Special Impeachment Counsel, Robert Mueller has submitted a list of questions that he would like to ask President Trump. These are largely centered around what Trump "thought" at different times like Comey briefings etc. These proposed queries are ridiculous on their face. The President does not have to explain to anyone what he is thinking. It is his Constitutional right to fire any subordinate at any time for any reason. The investigation now needs to be wrapped up without Trump answering any questions.---Perhaps a better question to ask though is what is in The President's mind right now that keeps him from firing Robert Mueller.