FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   721   722   723   724   725   726   727   728   729   730   731   732   733   734   735   736   737   738   739   740   741   742   743   744   745  
746   747   748   749   750   751   752   753   754   755   756   757   758   759   760   761   762   763   764   765   766   767   768   769   770   >>   >|  
n is then turned out, and another put in. But the Senate sometimes _rejects_ the new nomination; and what then becomes of the old incumbent? Is he out of office, or is he still in? He has not been turned out by any exercise of the power of appointment, for no appointment has been made. That power has not been exercised. He has not been removed by any distinct and separate act of removal, for no such act has been performed, or attempted. Is he still in, then, or is he out? Where is he? In this dilemma, Sir, those who maintain the power of removal as existing in the President alone are driven to what seems to me very near absurdity. The incumbent has not been removed by the appointing power, since the appointing power has not been exercised. He has not been removed by any distinct and independent act of removal, since no such act has been performed. They are forced to the necessity, therefore, of contending that the removal has been accomplished by the mere _nomination_ of a successor; so that the removing power is made incident, not to the appointing power, but to one part of it; that is, to the _nominating_ power. The nomination, not having been assented to by the Senate, it is clear, has failed, as the first step in the process of appointment. But though thus rendered null and void in its main object, as the first process in making an appointment, it is held to be good and valid, nevertheless, to bring about that which _results from an appointment_; that is, the removal of the person actually in office. In other words, the nomination produces the consequences of an appointment, or some of them, though it be itself no appointment, and effect no appointment. This, Sir, appears to me to be any thing but sound reasoning and just construction. But this is not all. The President has sometimes sent us a nomination to an office already filled, and, before we have acted upon it, has seen fit to withdraw it. What is the effect of such a nomination? If a _nomination_, merely as such, turns out the present incumbent, then he is out, let what will become afterwards of the nomination. But I believe the President has acted upon the idea that a nomination made, and at any time afterwards withdrawn, does _not_ remove the actual incumbent. Sir, even this is not the end of the inconsistencies into which the prevailing doctrine has led. There have been cases in which nominations to offices already filled have come to the Senate, remai
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   721   722   723   724   725   726   727   728   729   730   731   732   733   734   735   736   737   738   739   740   741   742   743   744   745  
746   747   748   749   750   751   752   753   754   755   756   757   758   759   760   761   762   763   764   765   766   767   768   769   770   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

nomination

 

appointment

 
removal
 

incumbent

 
President
 

appointing

 

removed

 

office

 

Senate

 

filled


process

 
distinct
 

effect

 

exercised

 
performed
 
turned
 
construction
 

appears

 

produces

 
consequences

reasoning
 

withdrawn

 

inconsistencies

 

prevailing

 
remove
 
actual
 

doctrine

 

offices

 

nominations

 

present


withdraw
 

driven

 

maintain

 

existing

 

absurdity

 

contending

 

necessity

 

forced

 

independent

 
rejects

exercise

 
dilemma
 
attempted
 

separate

 

accomplished

 
making
 

object

 
results
 

rendered

 
incident