| Myers v. United States
(No. 2)
58 Ct.Cls. 199, affirmed. |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Syllabus
| Opinion
[ Taft ] | Dissent
[ Holmes ] | Separate
[ Mcreynolds ] | Dissent
[ Brandeis ] |
| HTML version
PDF version | HTML version
PDF version | HTML version
PDF version | HTML version
PDF version | HTML version
PDF version |
Myers v. United States
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS
MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, dissenting.
My brothers McREYNOLDS and BRANDEIS have discussed the question before us with exhaustive research, and I say a few words merely to emphasize my agreement with their conclusion.
The arguments drawn from the executive power of the President, and from his duty to appoint officers of the United States (when Congress does not vest the appointment elsewhere), to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and to commission all officers of the United States, seem to me spider's webs inadequate to control the dominant facts.
We have to deal with an office that owes its existence to Congress, and that Congress may abolish tomorrow. Its duration and the pay attached to it while it lasts depend on Congress alone. Congress alone confers on the President the power to appoint to it, and at any time may transfer the power to other hands. With such power over its own creation, I have no more trouble in believing that Congress has power to prescribe a term of life for it free from any interference than I have in accepting the undoubted power of Congress to decree its end. I have equally little trouble in accepting its power to prolong the tenure of an incumbent until Congress or the Senate shall have assented to his removal. The duty of the President to see that the laws be executed is a duty that does not go beyond the laws or require him to achieve more than Congress sees fit to leave within his power. [p178]