The case at hand entails the decision arrived at by the United States supreme court. The ruling made pertained the exclusive powers accorded to a president, particularly with respect to the removal of the executive officials. Additionally, the court decision was relative to the removal of the officials without the consent and approval of the Senate or any other legislative bodies. There have been a number of cases where presidents have removed officers in office. From a practical perspective, the removal of the officials is a violation of the law. The ruling made by the court was based on the provisions of the constitution. There is an act mentioning on their appointment but lacks to state the terms, conditions, and procedures to be used in dismissal. The analysis of the conventions under the constitution has silent means to be used to dismiss an individual from power. Nonetheless, it does not mean that the president has exclusive powers, to dismiss an individual from his/her authority.
Based on this case, the supreme court came to a verdict that it is unconstitutional for the president to dismiss an official from office for whichever reason. The reason behind this was because the separation of powers from an official is indeed an instance of separating them from their powers. Legislative branches are separate legal entities, whose influence can only be determined by a court order or even a decision from the Senate. The decision reached by the court was based on the Office Act, which defines the tenure of legislative officials. Additionally, it describes the procedure to be used the dismiss officials from office, which can only be achieved by an impeachment.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Dissenting Opinions
In the legislative lines of the supreme court, it issues its dissent, which was guided by the exhaustive analysis of the convection offered by the constitution. In all the acts under the constitution, there is no single incidence the president has been given the rights to dismiss an official from office for whichever reason. The constitution has no provisions of granting the president illimitable powers to dismiss. Such rights are advanced to the supreme courts or the Senate. According to the descent of the supreme court, the decision reached to maintain the president has no powers to dismiss an official from office, without the knowledge of the Senate.
Rule
It was ruled that the constitution is the central body with the acts to define the procedure to be used to appoint and dismiss an official for a legislative duty. On the other end, if there are no statutory or constitutional provisions to define the due process to be followed, the President can assume his legislative powers to appoint or dismiss an individual. Nonetheless, the powers of a president are limited to being addressed and discussed by the Senate. The assumption of the procedure will entail the withstanding and definition of the cause an official is being impeached and the inherent powers to be used to appoint. The rules are applied in indicating the presence of a number of statutory measures, which is to be used to reconcile the unobstructed powers accorded to the president to dismiss, only after he opts to exercise powers.
Myers V. United States Brief
A review of the judgment made by the court is used as the appellant to understand the facts. Back in 1876, postmasters were prohibited by the federal law not to be dismissed from legislative official duties, without the consent and approval of the Senate. According to the statutory body, the supreme court maintains that the absence of statutory laws allows the President to exercise his powers to dismiss an official from power, provided the decision is discussed and has the consent of the Senate. In the context of President Woodrow Wilson, applied his powers and dismissed Myers. This was without the consent and approval of the Senate. As a result, Myers demanded a payback, on the basis of his rights being violated by the actions of the President.
Procedural History
Myers reported the case to the Court, which later came to dismiss his claims on mere reasons that it was outdated. Nonetheless, the supreme court accepted the hearing of an appeal court. The supreme court was to collect facts and issue to reach its decisions.
Issue and Holding
The issue at hand questions whether the President has any exclusive powers of removing an executive official from office. The judgment made by the court is that the President has the right and mandate to dismiss an official from power.
Basic Reasoning
The postmaster comes as a development of the Congress. According to the supreme court, the senate congress has to discuss the appointment and dismissal of legislative officials. On the other end, the constitution has constitutional convection where it states there has to be a Senate approval for a president to dismiss an official. In a nutshell, Myers v. the United States presents a clear assessment of the powers accorded to the President. Nonetheless, the supreme court defines the constitutional mandate of the Senate to discuss and approve the dismissal of an official as proposed by the President.
