In an earlier article titled The Executive Power of Removal, we contended that Article II gives the President a constitutional power to remove executive officers, at least those who are presidentially appointed. In this Essay, we expand on, and reply to a critique of, that article. We discuss the meaning of the clause vesting “executive Power” in the President and the clause authorizing Congress to make laws “necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” the powers of the federal government. We contend that the former vests authority to remove in the President and the latter does not allow Congress to treat that allocation of authority as a default. We discuss how constitutional developments in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania—specifically, a 1784 report authored by the Council of Censors—support our understanding of the federal Constitution’s text and structure. We also discuss early practice under the federal Constitution—specifically, high-profile instances where presidents removed executive subordinates without Senate participation. These sources and episodes, along with those we discussed in our previous article, support the conclusion that the Constitution confers on the President the authority to remove presidentially appointed executive officers.
During times of crisis, governments often consider policies that may promote safety, but that would require overstepping constitutionally protected...
For the over half-million people currently homeless in the United States, the U.S. Constitution has historically provided little help: it is strongly...
This essay considers the future of public-private collaboration in the wake of the Murthy v. Missouri litigation, which cast doubt on the...
This Article develops a new way of understanding the law in order to address contemporary debates about judicial practice and reform. The...
It has been a big moment for court reform. President Biden has proposed a slate of important if vaguely defined reforms, including a new ethics regime...
For the Balkinization Symposium on Neil S. Siegel, The Collective-Action Constitution (Oxford University Press, 2024)
Neil Siegel has written a grand...
In New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, the Supreme Court acknowledged the difficulties in applying its constitutional originalism to the...
In an earlier article titled The Executive Power of Removal, we contended that Article II gives the President a constitutional power to remove...
Celebrating Charles Ogletree, Jr. comes naturally to so many people because he served not only as a tireless champion of equality and justice, but...
In recent years, several popularly elected leaders have moved to consolidate their power by eroding checks and balances. Courts are commonly the...
Does the U.S. Constitution protect the affirmative right to vote? Those focusing on the Constitution’s text say no. Yet, the Supreme Court has treated...
In their article, The “Free White Person” Clause of the Naturalization Act of 1790 as Super-Statute, Gabriel J. Chin and Paul Finkelman make a...
The recently enacted Respect for Marriage Act is important bipartisan legislation that will protect same-sex marriage if the Supreme Court overrules...
These are momentous times for the comparative analysis of judicial behaviour. Once the sole province of US political scientists, a new generation of...
An upcoming Supreme Court case on Article III standing and disability presents critical questions about the future of litigation that promotes...
Constitutional review is the power of a body, usually a court, to assess whether law or government action complies with the constitution. Originating...
Moore v. United States raises the question whether unrealized gains, such as an increase in property value or a stock portfolio, constitute “incomes...
Gradualism should have won out in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, exerting gravitational influence on the majority and dissenters alike. In general...