Trump v. Slaughter · ¶200

Webster was much clearer. In 1835, “proceed[ing] upon the admission that [the President’s power to remove without Senate consent] does at present exist,” he urged that Congress nonetheless retained the authority to “regulat[e] . . . the tenure of office.” 1835 Debates 468. In his view, “no one could doubt [the] constitutional validity” of a law “declaring that district attorneys, or collectors of customs,” could be “removed [only] on conviction for misbehaviour,” or even of an “unwise” law imposing a similar removal restriction on “the Attorney General, or the Secretary of State.” Id., at 468–469. He was not alone. Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun, often rivals to each other and to Webster, also agreed: Clay argued at length that “the legislative authority is competent to regulate the exercise of the power of dismission” (that is, removal), id., at 524, and Calhoun confessed that,…

slip opinion, revised 7/07/26
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.