The Supreme Court cases of Meyers v. United States and Humphrey’s Executor v. United were both landmark cases dealing with presidential removal power. The Meyers case was a decision ruling that the president has the authority to remove executive branch officials, without the consent of the legislature. The Humphrey’s Executor case ruled the president does not have the power to remove officials who are not under the executive branches power. I believe that these rulings are consistent with presidential authority according to Article II in the Constitution.
The President has free and exclusive powers to remove his representatives without the approval of Congress. This can include any high-ranking officers who act on his behalf, ex. Secretary of State, and other executive branch officers who are working in other duties. This absolute removal power was a necessary effect of the Constitution’s 2nd article, which grants to the President total administrative control of those who execute the law. …show more content…
United States ruling struck down a previous law that stated postmasters of the first, second, and third classes will be appointed and could be removed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. President Woodrow Wilson dismissed Myers, a postmaster first class, without seeking Senate approval. After tracing legislative debate of the First Congress in 1789 which dealt with the interpretation of the President's appointment power in Article II, Chief Justice Taft concluded that the power to remove appointed officers is trusted in the President alone. Thus, the Myers v. United States decision ruled that the President has the authority to remove executive branch officers, and doesn’t need the approval of the Senate or other legislative