Search engine for discovering works of Art, research articles, and books related to Art and Culture
ShareThis
Javascript must be enabled to continue!

Constitutional Law in 1926-1927: The Constitutional Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in the October Term, 1926

View through CrossRef
The most conspicuous constitutional decision rendered by the Supreme Court during its 1926 term, or for many a preceding term, was in the case of Myers v. United States. It is here held that the power of the President to remove executive officers appointed by him with the consent of the Senate cannot be restricted by Congress. On the question of the removal of such officers the Constitution is entirely silent. It is an interesting commentary on the process by which we make constitutional law that a problem as important as this, a problem which was debated at length in 1789, upon which presidents have acted and congresses have passed statutes, should now, after 137 years, be definitely settled for the first time, and be settled now only because the late Mr. Myers saw fit to sue the government in the Court of Claims for his salary.The facts in the case are simple. In 1917 President Wilson appointed Myers to a first-class postmastership at Portland, Oregon, for a term of four years. In 1920, by direction of the President, he was removed from office. A statute passed in 1876 and still in force provides that “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.” The removal of Myers was never referred to the Senate for its consent.
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Title: Constitutional Law in 1926-1927: The Constitutional Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in the October Term, 1926
Description:
The most conspicuous constitutional decision rendered by the Supreme Court during its 1926 term, or for many a preceding term, was in the case of Myers v.
United States.
It is here held that the power of the President to remove executive officers appointed by him with the consent of the Senate cannot be restricted by Congress.
On the question of the removal of such officers the Constitution is entirely silent.
It is an interesting commentary on the process by which we make constitutional law that a problem as important as this, a problem which was debated at length in 1789, upon which presidents have acted and congresses have passed statutes, should now, after 137 years, be definitely settled for the first time, and be settled now only because the late Mr.
Myers saw fit to sue the government in the Court of Claims for his salary.
The facts in the case are simple.
In 1917 President Wilson appointed Myers to a first-class postmastership at Portland, Oregon, for a term of four years.
In 1920, by direction of the President, he was removed from office.
A statute passed in 1876 and still in force provides that “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.
” The removal of Myers was never referred to the Senate for its consent.

Related Results

Envisioning Originalism Applied to Bioethics Cases
Envisioning Originalism Applied to Bioethics Cases
Photo ID 123697425 © Alexandersikov | Dreamstime.com Abstract Originalism is an increasingly prevalent method for interpreting provisions of the US Constitution. It requires strict...
Analysis of the Constitutional Court Cases in 2022
Analysis of the Constitutional Court Cases in 2022
The Constitutional Court received a total of 2,829 cases in 2022 alone. Among the decisions made by the Constitutional Court in 2022, this paper reviews major decisions centered on...
On the Status of Rights
On the Status of Rights
Photo by Patrick Tomasso on Unsplash ABSTRACT In cases where the law conflicts with bioethics, the status of rights must be determined to resolve some of the tensions. ...
Autonomy on Trial
Autonomy on Trial
Photo by CHUTTERSNAP on Unsplash Abstract This paper critically examines how US bioethics and health law conceptualize patient autonomy, contrasting the rights-based, individualist...
Amar Putusan Pada Kewenangan Judicial Review di Mahkamah Konstitusi
Amar Putusan Pada Kewenangan Judicial Review di Mahkamah Konstitusi
The Constitutional Court as an Indonesian state institution in the judicial review of the law against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia has been regulated by Law N...
Eksistensi Undang-Undang Cipta Kerja Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 91/PPU-XVIII/2020
Eksistensi Undang-Undang Cipta Kerja Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 91/PPU-XVIII/2020
This study aims to find out and understand the existence of the Job Creation Law after the Constitutional Court Decision Number 91/PPU-XVIII/2020, and the legal meaning of the Job ...
A Review of the Constitutional Court's Use of International Human Rights Norms
A Review of the Constitutional Court's Use of International Human Rights Norms
Since the World War, international cooperation has been made to preserve the peace and interests of the human community, and representative results include the creation of internat...
Analysis of the Supreme Court Cases in 2022: The Law of Claims
Analysis of the Supreme Court Cases in 2022: The Law of Claims
In this paper, among the major precedents of the Supreme Court on civil matters in the year 2022, I analyzed the meaning and contents of 8 important decisions (focused on the claim...

Back to Top