Article II of the Constitution begins with the phrase “The executive power shall be vested…” The founders then went on to detail the various duties that would be expected of the Presidential office, and the sundry list of the powers that the office could exhibit. However, this is where the controversy began. Just a few short years after the ratification of the Constitution, the question as to the extent of what those powers were came to the forefront of the political scene. Many argued that the President should be reined in to what was expressly said in the Constitution while others said that executive had a longer leash in regards to authority because of the first six words of Article II. Right out of the gate, an issue arose over the President’s
…show more content…
47). If the President came to find themselves on the wrong side of the legislative branch, it could block every removal they tried to institute. This would leave the President gridlocked and unable to work as they would be impeded at nearly every turn. This is not to say that the executive should have free reign over policy and never be checked, however, there comes a time when proceedings must continue to move forward. The country could not continue to subsist at a perpetual standstill. It would also lead to entirely too much blending between the departments (Madison, pg. 48-49). The Constitution created three separate, distinct, and independent branches. Attempting to combine any more of their powers than was already expressly provided for by Checks and Balances would undermine the institutions set up by the document. It would make one branch too dependent on one of the others. Impeaching all high ranking officials would lead to disaster for the independence and energy as well (Madison, pg. 47). Impeachment was reserved for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” (Article II Section 4). Refusal to perform their duties was not considered a crime, even in the lowest sense; thus the heads of the various national departments could continuously impede the work of an executive they did not support. Independence and energy would then cease to …show more content…
Because of Chief Justice Taft’s broad opinion on the removal power, it came to be assumed that the Executive controlled the dismissal for nearly every federal official; with the exception of the legislators, Vice President, and judges. Even those appointed in independent regulatory agencies, even though they were placed by Congress for a set term, did not appear to be safe. In the Supreme Court case Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, the executor for William Humphrey, an employee of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), brought a lawsuit against President Franklin D. Roosevelt. During Humphrey’s time at the FTC, he opposed President Roosevelt’s New Deal. After several orders to resign, Roosevelt simply fired him for his differing political opinions. He sued for the lost wages, though Humphrey died before the case was received, because he felt it was wrongful termination; the President did not have that kind of authority. Congressional legislation had assigned members of these agencies to fixed terms and they could not be removed except for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office” (Humphrey’s Executor v. US, pg.
47). If the President came to find themselves on the wrong side of the legislative branch, it could block every removal they tried to institute. This would leave the President gridlocked and unable to work as they would be impeded at nearly every turn. This is not to say that the executive should have free reign over policy and never be checked, however, there comes a time when proceedings must continue to move forward. The country could not continue to subsist at a perpetual standstill. It would also lead to entirely too much blending between the departments (Madison, pg. 48-49). The Constitution created three separate, distinct, and independent branches. Attempting to combine any more of their powers than was already expressly provided for by Checks and Balances would undermine the institutions set up by the document. It would make one branch too dependent on one of the others. Impeaching all high ranking officials would lead to disaster for the independence and energy as well (Madison, pg. 47). Impeachment was reserved for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” (Article II Section 4). Refusal to perform their duties was not considered a crime, even in the lowest sense; thus the heads of the various national departments could continuously impede the work of an executive they did not support. Independence and energy would then cease to …show more content…
Because of Chief Justice Taft’s broad opinion on the removal power, it came to be assumed that the Executive controlled the dismissal for nearly every federal official; with the exception of the legislators, Vice President, and judges. Even those appointed in independent regulatory agencies, even though they were placed by Congress for a set term, did not appear to be safe. In the Supreme Court case Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, the executor for William Humphrey, an employee of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), brought a lawsuit against President Franklin D. Roosevelt. During Humphrey’s time at the FTC, he opposed President Roosevelt’s New Deal. After several orders to resign, Roosevelt simply fired him for his differing political opinions. He sued for the lost wages, though Humphrey died before the case was received, because he felt it was wrongful termination; the President did not have that kind of authority. Congressional legislation had assigned members of these agencies to fixed terms and they could not be removed except for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office” (Humphrey’s Executor v. US, pg.