Decision of 1789

Last updated

The Decision of 1789 refers to a month-long constitutional debate that occurred during the first session of the United States House of Representatives as to whether Article Two of the United States Constitution granted the president the power to remove officers of the United States at will. It has been called "the first significant legislative construction of the Constitution". [1] The debate occurred after the proposed creation of three executive departments, the Department of the Treasury, Department of War, and Department of Foreign Affairs. Most of the debate focused on the proposal to create a Department of Foreign Affairs—the precursor to the Department of State—and which branch of government would have the power to remove officers from that department. [1]

Contents

Congress ultimately enacted three departmental acts that contained similar language, none of which contained language expressly granting the President removal power, but instead discussed the custody of departmental papers after a department secretary "shall be removed from office by the President of the United States". [2] [1] Nonetheless, one of those acts included a proviso urged by James Madison that many scholars believe "was meant to imply recognition that the Secretary would be removable by the President at will". [3] Justices of the Supreme Court and legal scholars continue to debate the legal significance of the decision. [1] [4] Some legal scholars contend that the Decision conveyed a presidential power under the Constitution to remove officials. [1] Others have concluded that there was no consensus on removal power, or that the First Congress actually rejected this theory of presidential removal power. [5] [6]

Theories on removal power

Four principal theories were advanced by members of the House regarding the proper authority to remove officers.

Executive power theory

The executive power theory stated that the President would have the power to remove executive officers unilaterally. The theory argued that because executive power was vested in the President under the Vesting Clause, and since removals of executive officials are executive functions, removal powers would fall under the authority of the President. It further reasoned that because exceptions to the executive power were enumerated in the Constitution, such as Senate concurrence with appointments, Congress is not empowered to modify executive authority on its own. A majority of Representatives favored the executive power theory, with its leading proponents including Madison, Fisher Ames, and John Vining. There was some debate within the coalition of executive power supporters over the wording of statutory language to convey an executive power to remove officials. [1]

Congressional delegation theory

The congressional delegation theory argued that removal powers would need to be delegated by Congress in law. Under the theory, Congress would have the power to grant authority to remove officials under the Necessary and Proper Clause. It also reasoned that since Congress was implied to have the Constitutional power to create executive offices, it could set the terms of removal for its officials. Most supporters of the theory believed that it gave Congress a choice in delegating removal powers, while others believed it to be a formality, and that Congress was obliged to grant the President removal powers in statute. At least 7 Representatives voiced support for the theory and another 9 may have been "silent" supporters. Some Representatives who initially voiced support for the theory, including Madison, abandoned it due to the implications of Congress being able to delegate removal powers to anyone and possibly hindering the President's powers to supervise the executive branch. [1]

The advice and consent theory asserted that the contingency of appointments and treaties on the advice and consent of the Senate in the Appointments Clause and Treaty Clause implied a similar power to condition removals on the advice and consent of the Senate. About 6 Representatives voiced support of this theory. [1]

Impeachment theory

The impeachment theory argued that officers could only be removed through the impeachment process in Congress. It had the fewest supporters among Congress and was only supported by 2-3 Representatives. Its prime advocate, William Smith, argued that offices were akin to property for officeholders and that they could not be deprived of them without findings of malfeasance. [1] [7]

Debate over constitutional meaning

The traditional legal view of the Decision of 1789, held by some of the United States' leading figures, was that it supported the existence of the presidential removal power. Writing as Pacificus, Alexander Hamilton stated that the Decision of 1789 construed the Constitution as placing full executive removal power with the President. [8] This view was supported by Chief Justice John Marshall in his biography of George Washington. [9] In Myers v. United States , Chief Justice William H. Taft, writing for the majority, used the Decision of 1789 as support for broad presidential removal powers. [10] More recently, Chief Justice John Roberts used the decision in both Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (2010) and Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020) to support his construction of the President's removal power. [4] Thus, it has been used as support in two Supreme Court cases that set precedent. [11]

A revisionist view of the decision is that it did not resolve constitutional questions on the authority of the president to remove executive branch officials. [1] [11] In Seila Law, Justice Elena Kagan challenged Roberts's characterization of the Decision of 1789, stating that "[t]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". [12]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Article One of the United States Constitution</span> Portion of the US Constitution regarding Congress

Article One of the Constitution of the United States establishes the legislative branch of the federal government, the United States Congress. Under Article One, Congress is a bicameral legislature consisting of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Article One grants Congress various enumerated powers and the ability to pass laws "necessary and proper" to carry out those powers. Article One also establishes the procedures for passing a bill and places various limits on the powers of Congress and the states from abusing their powers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Article Two of the United States Constitution</span> Portion of the US Constitution regarding the executive branch

Article Two of the United States Constitution establishes the executive branch of the federal government, which carries out and enforces federal laws. Article Two vests the power of the executive branch in the office of the President of the United States, lays out the procedures for electing and removing the President, and establishes the President's powers and responsibilities.

McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that defined the scope of the U.S. Congress's legislative power and how it relates to the powers of American state legislatures. The dispute in McCulloch involved the legality of the national bank and a tax that the state of Maryland imposed on it. In its ruling, the Supreme Court established firstly that the "Necessary and Proper" Clause of the U.S. Constitution gives the U.S. federal government certain implied powers necessary and proper for the exercise of the powers enumerated explicitly in the Constitution, and secondly that the American federal government is supreme over the states, and so states' ability to interfere with the federal government is restricted. Since the legislature has the authority to tax and spend, the court held that it therefore has authority to establish a national bank, as being "necessary and proper" to that end.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federal government of the United States</span> National government of the United States

The federal government of the United States is the common government of the United States, a federal republic located primarily in North America, comprising 50 states, five major self-governing territories, several island possessions, and the federal district of Washington, D.C., where the majority of the federal government is based.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">War Powers Resolution</span> 1973 U.S. federal law (50 U.S.C. 1541-48)

The War Powers Resolution is a federal law intended to check the U.S. president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States congressional joint resolution. It provides that the president can send the U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization", or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Executive order</span> Federal administrative instruction issued by the president of the United States

In the United States, an executive order is a directive by the president of the United States that manages operations of the federal government. The legal or constitutional basis for executive orders has multiple sources. Article Two of the United States Constitution gives presidents broad executive and enforcement authority to use their discretion to determine how to enforce the law or to otherwise manage the resources and staff of the executive branch. The ability to make such orders is also based on expressed or implied Acts of Congress that delegate to the president some degree of discretionary power. The vast majority of executive orders are proposed by federal agencies before being issued by the president.

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. It was distinguished in 1935 by Humphrey's Executor v. United States. However, in Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020), the Supreme Court interpreted Myers as establishing that the President generally has unencumbered removal power. Myers was the first Supreme Court case to address the president's removal powers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Philip P. Barbour</span> US Supreme Court justice from 1836 to 1841

Philip Pendleton Barbour was the tenth speaker of the United States House of Representatives and an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He is the only individual to serve in both positions.

Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988), was a Supreme Court of the United States decision that determined the Independent Counsel Act was constitutional. Morrison also set important precedent determining the scope of Congress's ability to encumber the President's authority to remove Officers of the United States from office. In Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020), the Supreme Court distinguished Morrison as a narrow exception applying only to inferior officers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Separation of powers under the United States Constitution</span>

Separation of powers is a political doctrine originating in the writings of Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu in The Spirit of the Laws, in which he argued for a constitutional government with three separate branches, each of which would have defined authority to check the powers of the others. This philosophy heavily influenced the United States Constitution, according to which the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of the United States government are kept distinct in order to prevent abuse of power. The American form of separation of powers is associated with a system of checks and balances.

The powers of the president of the United States include those explicitly granted by Article II of the United States Constitution as well as those granted by Acts of Congress, implied powers, and also a great deal of soft power that is attached to the presidency.

In American law, the unitary executive theory is a Constitutional law theory according to which the President of the United States has sole authority over the executive branch. It is "an expansive interpretation of presidential power that aims to centralize greater control over the government in the White House". The theory often comes up in jurisprudential disagreements about the president's ability to remove employees within the executive branch; transparency and access to information; discretion over the implementation of new laws; and the ability to influence agencies' rule-making. There is disagreement about the doctrine's strength and scope, with more expansive versions of the theory becoming the focus of modern political debate. These expansive versions are controversial for both constitutional and practical reasons. Since the Reagan administration, the Supreme Court has embraced a stronger unitary executive, which has been championed primarily by its conservative justices, the Federalist Society, and the Heritage Foundation.

The Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution empowers the President of the United States to nominate and, with the advice and consent (confirmation) of the United States Senate, appoint public officials. Although the Senate must confirm certain principal officers, Congress may by law invest the appointment of "inferior" officers to the President alone, or to courts of law or heads of departments.

Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), was a Supreme Court of the United States case decided regarding whether the United States President has the power to remove executive officials of a quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial administrative body for reasons other than what is allowed by Congress. The Court held that the President did not have this power. However, Humphrey's has been distinguished by Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In Seila, Chief Justice John Roberts described Humphrey's as holding that Congress may occasionally create independent agencies with removal only for cause if such agencies share the characteristics of the FTC in 1935.

Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, 561 U.S. 477 (2010), was a 5–4 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that laws enabling inferior officers of the United States to be insulated from the Presidential removal authority with two levels of "for cause" removal violated Article Two of the United States Constitution.

The Tenure of Office Act of 1820, also known as the Four Years' Law, was passed on May 15, 1820 by the United States Congress, and purported to be "an Act to limit the term of office of certain officers therein named, and for other purposes". The author of the law was Secretary of the Treasury William H. Crawford; it was introduced into the Senate by Mahlon Dickerson of New Jersey.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Powers of the United States Congress</span>

Powers of the United States Congress are implemented by the United States Constitution, defined by rulings of the Supreme Court, and by its own efforts and by other factors such as history and custom. It is the chief legislative body of the United States. Some powers are explicitly defined by the Constitution and are called enumerated powers; others have been assumed to exist and are called implied powers.

The constitutional law of the United States is the body of law governing the interpretation and implementation of the United States Constitution. The subject concerns the scope of power of the United States federal government compared to the individual states and the fundamental rights of individuals. The ultimate authority upon the interpretation of the Constitution and the constitutionality of statutes, state and federal, lies with the Supreme Court of the United States.

Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. 197 (2020) was a U.S. Supreme Court case which determined that the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), with a single director who could only be removed from office "for cause", violated the separation of powers. Handed down on June 29, 2020, the Court's 5–4 decision created a new test to determine when Congress may limit the power of the president of the United States to remove an officer of the United States from office.

Collins v. Yellen, 594 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the structure of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA). The case follows on the Court's prior ruling in Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which found that the establishing structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), with a single director who could only be removed from office "for cause", violated the separation of powers; the FHFA shares a similar structure as the CFPB. The case extends the legal challenge to the federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2008.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Prakash, Saikrishna (2006). "New Light on the Decision of 1789". Cornell L. Rev. 91: 1021.
  2. ↑ "ArtII.S2.C2.3.15.2 Decision of 1789 and Removals in Early Republic". Cornell Law.
  3. ↑ "The Removal Power". Justia Law. Retrieved 2021-12-03.
  4. 1 2 Mashaw, Seila (2020-08-27). "Of Angels, Pins, and For-Cause Removal: A Requiem for the Passive Virtues". The University of Chicago Law Review Online. Archived from the original on 2020-08-28. Retrieved 2021-11-30.
  5. ↑ Shugerman, Jed (2023). ""The Indecisions of 1789: Inconstant Originalism and Strategic Ambiguity"". University of Pennsylvania Law Review. 171 (3): 753. Retrieved 30 November 2024.{{cite journal}}: More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help)
  6. ↑ Chabot, Christine (2020). "Is the Federal Reserve Constitutional? An Originalist Argument for Independent Agencies". Notre Dame Law Review. 96 (1): 1. Retrieved 30 November 2024.
  7. ↑ "Creation of the Executive". George Washington University.
  8. ↑ Pacificus No. 1, reprinted in 15 The Papers of Alexander Hamilton 33, 40 (Harold C. Syrett ed., 1969).
  9. ↑ 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).
  10. ↑ Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 161 (1926).
  11. 1 2 John L. Gedid, History and Executive Removal Power: Morrison v. Olson and Separation of Powers, 11 Campbell L. Rev. 175, 176 (1989).
  12. ↑ 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)).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.