Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Legal History
Movement On Removal: An Emerging Consensus On The First Congress, Jed Handelsman Shugerman
Movement On Removal: An Emerging Consensus On The First Congress, Jed Handelsman Shugerman
Faculty Scholarship
What did the “Decision of 1789” decide about presidential removal power, if anything? It turns out that an emerging consensus of scholars agrees that there was not much consensus in the First Congress.
Two more questions follow: Is the “unitary executive theory” based on originalism, and if so, is originalism a reliable method of interpretation based on historical evidence?
The unitary executive theory posits that a president has exclusive and “indefeasible” executive powers (i.e., powers beyond congressional and judicial checks and balances). This panel was an opportunity for unitary executive theorists and their critics to debate recent historical research questioning …
The Indecisions Of 1789: Inconstant Originalism And Strategic Ambiguity, Jed Handelsman Shugerman
The Indecisions Of 1789: Inconstant Originalism And Strategic Ambiguity, Jed Handelsman Shugerman
Faculty Scholarship
The unitary executive theory relies on the First Congress and an ostensible "Decision of 1789" as an originalist basis for unconditional presidential removal power. In light of new evidence, the First Congress was undecided on any constitutional theory and retreated to ambiguity in order to compromise and move on to other urgent business.
Seila Law's strict separation-of-powers argument depends on indefeasibility (i.e., Congress may not set limits or conditions on the president's power of civil removal). In fact, few members of the First Congress defended or even discussed indefeasibility. Only nine of fifty-four participating representatives explicitly endorsed the presidentialist …
Amicus Brief In Collins V. Mnuchin On Original Public Meaning Of Presidential Removal And The 'Decision Of 1789', Jed Handelsman Shugerman
Amicus Brief In Collins V. Mnuchin On Original Public Meaning Of Presidential Removal And The 'Decision Of 1789', Jed Handelsman Shugerman
Faculty Scholarship
Petitioners and the en banc Court of Appeals below have rested their contention that the Constitution grants the President at-will removal authority over the head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) on historical claims about the first Congress’s ostensible “Decision of 1789.” In so doing, Petitioners are following Chief Justice Taft’s account in Myers v. United States, upon which this Court relied on in 2010 and again last term for an originalist interpretation of Article II. New historical research shows that Myers was incorrect. The “Decision of 1789” actually supports, rather than undermines, Congress’s power to limit presidential removal. …