Helpful Hints
  • (1) You can search the entire content of Dean’s by phrase or by individual words. Just type your keywords into the search box and then pull down the search icon on the right and choose the option you need: search by word or by phrase or reset the content.
  • (2) Double click on a word in the content of a definition, and if the word is listed as a keyword in Dean’s, it will look that word up.
  • (3) You can use the search function to help jump the scrolling function. Simply type the first 2-3 letters into the search box then hit enter on your keyboard and the scroll will go to those Keywords that begin with those letters and allow you to scroll from there.

 Dual for-cause limitations on the removal of Board members contravene the Constitution’s separation of powers. 

Our Constitution divided the “powers of the new Federal Government into three defined categories, Legislative, Executive, and Judicial.” INS v. Chadha , 462 U. S. 919, 951 (1983) . Article II vests “[t]he executive Power … in a President of the United States of America,” who must “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Art. II, §1, cl. 1; id., §3. In light of “[t]he impossibility that one man should be able to perform all the great business of the State,” the Constitution provides for executive officers to “assist the supreme Magistrate in discharging the duties of his trust.” 30 Writings of George Washington 334 (J. Fitzpatrick ed. 1939). 

Since 1789, the Constitution has been understood to empower the President to keep these officers accountable-by removing them from office, if necessary. See generally Myers v. United States , 272 U. S. 52 (1926) . The Court has determined, however, that this authority is not without limit. In Humphrey’s Executor v. United States , 295 U. S. 602 (1935) , the court held that Congress can, ...

Register or login to access full content