Talk:Myers v. United States

From Deep web, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Untitled[edit]

I've removed the following paragraph from this article:

"The Petitioner claims that because he was a First-Class Postmaster, that this law certainly applied to his case, and that Wilson would have needed to get the consent of the Senate to dismiss him. He demanded back pay for the entirety of his unemployment. If this law were passed constitutionally, I most defiantly would have ruled for the Petitioner. However, in this case, Myers v. U.S., I rule for the respondent. The respondent would have made the argument that the law was not constitutional in the first place, because under Article II of the Constitution, it states that the President has the power of removal of executive officers."

After a lengthy search of the decision, I found that this text is not part of the decision. I assume the contributor wrote this imagining themself to be a justice of the supreme court, but it certainly does not belong here. If it was paraphrasing, it can be re-instated, but should be noted as such. Skyler 01:57, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)