Trump v. Slaughter · ¶31

For another, the power to remove at will was a necessary corollary of the Constitution’s design. The “unity” of the Executive Branch would be “destroyed,” Hamilton wrote, if it were vested “ostensibly in one man, subject in whole or in part to the control and co-operation of others, in the capacity of counselors to him.” Id., No. 70, at 424. But that is precisely what would occur if the President’s so-called assistants could exercise his power against his wishes. Only if the President’s deputies were removable at will would they truly be “subordinate” to “the sole executive magistrate.” See id., No. 47, at 303 (J. Madison). And only then could the Constitution live up to James Iredell’s boast that “the President” would “be personally responsible for everything.” Answers to Mr. Mason’s Objections to the New Constitution (1788), in Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States 348…

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