Question

In 1876, Congress passed a law that stated that post office employees "shall be appointed and may be removed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and shall hold their offices for four years unless sooner removed or suspended according to law." In the 1926 Supreme Court case Myers v. United States, the law was ruled unconstitutional. The Supreme Court found that the president has exclusive power to remove officials from the executive branch. How did the Supreme Court's decision in Myers impact the constitutional principle of separation of powers?

A. It increased the power of the Senate relative to the presidency.
B. It clarified the power of the Supreme Court relative to the presidency.
C. It clarified the power of the presidency relative to the Senate
D. It decreased the power of the Supreme Court relative to the Senate.

Answer 1

The Supreme Court's decision in Myers v. United States clarified the power of the presidency by affirming the president's exclusive authority to remove executive branch officials, enhancing the president's control over the executive branch and reinforcing the independent role of the president within the federal government structure. The correct answer is option b.

Step-by-step explanation:

The Supreme Court's decision in Myers v. United States had a significant impact on the constitutional principle of separation of powers. By ruling that the President has exclusive power to remove executive branch officials, the Court clarified the power of the presidency relative to the Senate. This decision shifted the balance by confirming that while the Senate has the authority to consent to presidential appointments, it does not have the power to consent to the removal of these officials once they are appointed.

The outcome underscored and protected the President's ability to control the executive branch without interference from the Senate, reinforcing the independent role of the president within the federal government structure as a dominant figure.

The precedent set by this ruling implied that executive branch officials could serve at the pleasure of the President, which can be seen as a means to ensure a united and effective administration.

However, this interpretation of the executive power to remove officials stands somewhat in contrast to the original checks and balances envisioned by the framers of the Constitution, which intended to have a system where each branch of government could check the other. The decision effectively negated the law passed by Congress in 1876 that involved the Senate in the removal process, thus enhancing presidential autonomy in this area.