Trump v. Slaughter · ¶85
To support its own position, the dissent relies on two passing comments in The Federalist. See post, at 15–17. Neither one helps. In Federalist No. 39, Madison noted that the “tenure” of “ministerial offices . . . will be a subject of legal regulation,” The Federalist No. 39, at 242, but it beggars belief to suggest that he intended so obliquely to permit Congress to hem in the President—it is far more likely that he intended only to endorse “regulation” of “tenure” in the sense of a limited term for executive officers, subject to Presidential removal in the interim. And in Federalist No. 77, Hamilton said that the Senate’s consent “would be necessary to displace as well as to appoint,” id., No. 77, at 459, but it remains a subject of scholarly debate whether Hamilton meant “displace” in the sense of “remove” or “replace.” Certainly the idea that the Senate could force a new President…Read in context ›
slip opinion, revised 7/07/26
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.