Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
The Traditional View Of Hamilton's Federalist No. 77 And An Unexpected Challenge: A Response To Seth Barrett Tillman, Jeremy D. Bailey
The Traditional View Of Hamilton's Federalist No. 77 And An Unexpected Challenge: A Response To Seth Barrett Tillman, Jeremy D. Bailey
Jeremy D Bailey
In Federalist No. 77, Alexander Hamilton writes that the Senate's consent would be necessary to "displace" a federal executive officer. Because Hamilton is well known as a defender of executive power, this comment has long been a puzzle. Seth Barrett Tillman proposes to solve this puzzle by reading "displace" as "replace" rather than "remove." If Tillman is correct, then he would not only solve a major interpretative dilemma, but also would liberate those who argue on originalist grounds for unilateral presidential removal powers. This paper responds to Tillman's argument by considering three ways to consider Hamilton's No. 77: Contemporary evidence, …
The Traditional View Of Hamilton’S Federalist No. 77 And An Unexpected Challenge: A Response To Seth Barrett Tillman, Jeremy D. Bailey
The Traditional View Of Hamilton’S Federalist No. 77 And An Unexpected Challenge: A Response To Seth Barrett Tillman, Jeremy D. Bailey
Jeremy D Bailey
In Federalist No. 77, Alexander Hamilton writes that the Senate's consent would be necessary to "displace" a federal executive officer. Because Hamilton is well known as a defender of executive power, this comment has long been a puzzle. Seth Barrett Tillman proposes to solve this puzzle by reading "displace" as "replace" rather than "remove." If Tillman is correct, then he would not only solve a major interpretative dilemma, but also would liberate those who argue on originalist grounds for unilateral presidential removal powers. This paper responds to Tillman's argument by considering three ways to consider Hamilton's No. 77: Contemporary evidence, …