FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   593   594   595   596   597   598   599   600   601   602   603   604   605   606   607   608   609   610   611   612   613   614   615   616   617  
618   619   620   621   622   623   624   625   626   627   628   629   630   631   632   633   634   635   636   637   638   639   640   641   642   >>   >|  
act, though it can only be performed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. 3d. The commission. To grant a commission to a person appointed, might, perhaps, be deemed a duty enjoined by the constitution. 'He shall,' says that instrument, 'commission all the officers of the United States.'" Marbury _v._ Madison, 1 Cr. 137, 155-156 (1803). Marshall's statement that the appointment "is the act of the President," conflicts with the more generally held, and sensible view that when an appointment is made with its consent, the Senate shares the appointing power. 1 Kent's Comm. 310; 2 Story Comm. Sec. 1539; Ex parte Hennen, 13 Pet. 225, 259 (1839). [298] 3 Op. Atty. Gen. 188 (1837). [299] 2 Story Comms., Sec. 1531; 5 Writings of Jefferson (Ford, ed.), 161 (1790); 9 Writings of Madison (Hunt, ed.), 111-113 (1822). [300] 286 U.S. 6 (1932). [301] Corwin, The President, Office and Powers (3d ed.), 92. [302] Marbury _v._ Madison, 1 Cr. 137, 157-158, 182 (1803). [303] 12 Op. Atty. Gen. 306 (1867). [304] It should be remembered that, for various reasons, Marbury got neither commission nor office. The case assumes, in fact, the necessity of possession of his commission by the appointee. [305] Opins. Atty. Gen. 631 (1823); 2 ibid. 525 (1832); 3 ibid. 673 (1841); 4 ibid. 523 (1846); 10 ibid. 356 (1862); 11 ibid. 179 (1865); 12 ibid. 32 (1866); 12 ibid. 455 (1868); 14 ibid. 563 (1875); 15 ibid. 207 (1877); 16 ibid. 523 (1880); 18 ibid. 28 (1884); 19 ibid. 261 (1889); 26 ibid. 234 (1907); 30 ibid. 314 (1914); 33 ibid. 20 (1921). In 4 Opins. Atty. Gen. 361, 363 (1845), the general doctrine was held not to apply to a yet unfilled office which was created during the previous session of Congress, but this distinction is rejected in 12 ibid. 455 (1868); 18 ibid. 28; and 19 ibid. 261. [306] 23 Opins. Atty. Gen. 599 (1901); 22 ibid. 82 (1898). A "recess" may, however, be merely "constructive," as when a regular session succeeds immediately upon a special session. It was this kind of situation that gave rise to the once famous _Crum_ incident. _See_ Willoughby, III, 1508-1509. [307] 5 U.S.C. Sec. 56. [308] 6 Opins. Atty. Gen. 358 (1854); 12 ibid. 41 (1866); 25 ibid. 259 (1904); 28 ibid. 95 (1909). [309] 272 U.S. 52. [310] 19 Stat. 78, 80. [311] 272 U.S. 163-164. [312] The reticence of the Constitution respecting removal left room for four possibilities, _first_, the one suggested by the common law doct
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   593   594   595   596   597   598   599   600   601   602   603   604   605   606   607   608   609   610   611   612   613   614   615   616   617  
618   619   620   621   622   623   624   625   626   627   628   629   630   631   632   633   634   635   636   637   638   639   640   641   642   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

commission

 
Madison
 

Marbury

 

session

 
President
 

appointment

 
office
 

Writings

 

Senate

 

consent


previous

 

Congress

 

created

 

rejected

 

distinction

 

unfilled

 

general

 
doctrine
 

reticence

 

suggested


common
 

possibilities

 
respecting
 
Constitution
 

removal

 

succeeds

 

regular

 

immediately

 
special
 

constructive


recess

 
situation
 

Willoughby

 

famous

 

incident

 

assumes

 

shares

 

appointing

 

conflicts

 

statement


generally

 

Hennen

 

Marshall

 

person

 

appointed

 
advice
 

performed

 
deemed
 

officers

 

United