Advisory Opinions Humphrey’s Executor
5 snips
Mar 13, 2025 Join law professors Josh Chafetz, an expert in constitutional law at Georgetown, and Aaron Nielson, currently serving as Texas Solicitor General, as they dive into the fascinating legacy of Humphrey's Executor. They explore the evolution of executive power, discussing landmark cases like Myers v. United States. The conversation illuminates the balance of power between Congress and the President, the implications of agency independence, and the ongoing debates about judicial skepticism and accountability. Tune in for a thought-provoking legal discourse!
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Humphrey's Flawed Reasoning
- Humphrey's Executor's reasoning is weak, particularly its "quasi" distinctions.
- Congress should control agency structure, including removal, under the Necessary and Proper Clause.
The Case Against Humphrey's
- Myers v. United States provides the strongest argument against Humphrey's Executor.
- Madison's view on removal as executive power, supported by historical practice ('liquidation'), strengthens this.
Political Checks on Removal
- Presidential removal power is checked by political consequences, not just legal restrictions.
- Firing Senate-confirmed officials can create political backlash, as Hamilton noted.