Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

You are making an argument for strict enumeration, in other words that officers can only be removed via impeachment because it is the only removal method explicitly listed in the Constitution. That argument was formally rejected by SCOTUS in 1926[1], and really only in force for lifetime appointment judges today.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers_v._United_States



I'm far from being versed in this, but when I read the wikipedia article, it's about whether CONGRESS can dismiss someone without approval of the president, not the other way around.

It also cites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsons_v._United_States

Which DOES say something about whether the president has the power to dismiss, among other officials, district attorneys:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=755666055204146...


Myers addressed a law requiring Senate approval for a removal. The court struck down this law, leading the case to be considered a definitive rejection of strict enumeration. You can read more here- https://constitutionallawreporter.com/2019/05/09/myers-v-uni...


I stand corrected.


The current SCOTUS has demonstrated that precedent set by previous SCOTUS rulings can be disregarded and overturned fairly easily.

The head of the Judicial Branch operates on vibes and bribes now.


Like a prior SCOTUS did with Brown v Board of Education, which was a very good overturning of precedent?

SCOTUS has been liberal since the FDR days. The pendulum has now swung in the opposite direction.

The current SCOTUS is reducing the power of the administrative state and the unelected bureaucrats.


> The current SCOTUS is reducing the power of the administrative state and the unelected bureaucrats.

Yes, and concentrating it in the executive. When are we going to stop pretending that the unitary executive dream isn't real?


It's not a dream and hasn't been for decades. It's more a problem now because the federal government as a whole has gotten so powerful. Returning power to the states is one alternative.


It's not about returning power to the states.

It's the same dog whistle as States Rights vs Slavery. When push comes to shove the confederacy banned states from determing their own slavery policy.

We see this extremely obviously with the AI policy of the white house which is _do not_ let the states decide.

Elected Republican dogma is "State's Rights" when the states would decide the "correct" right and it's Federal supremacy when they wouldn't.


No no, gratuities.

Totally different from bribes

/s


Yeah, no taxes on tips. It's like 40% cheaper for gratuities.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: