Clause 3. The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
RECESS APPOINTMENTS
Setting out from the proposition that the very nature of the executive power requires that it shall always be "in capacity for action,"
Attorneys General early came to interpret "happen" to mean "happen to exist," and long continued practice securely establishes this construction. It results that whenever a vacancy may have occurred in the first instance, or for whatever reason, if it still continues after the Senate has ceased to sit and so cannot be consulted, the President may fill it in the way described.[305] But a Senate "recess" does not include holiday or temporary adjournments,[306] while by an act of Congress, if the vacancy existed when the Senate was in session, the _ad interim_ appointee may receive no salary until he has been confirmed by the Senate.[307]
_AD INTERIM_ DESIGNATIONS
To be distinguished from the power to make recess appointments is the power of the President to make temporary or _ad interim_ designations of officials to perform the duties of other absent officials. Usually such a situation is provided for in advance by a statute which designates the inferior officer who is to act in place of his immediate superior. But in the lack of such provision both theory and practice concede the President the power to make the designation.[308]
THE REMOVAL POWER; THE MYERS CASE
Save for the provision which it makes for a power of impeachment of "civil officers of the United States," the Const.i.tution contains no reference to a power to remove from office; and until its decision in Myers _v._ United States,[309] October 25, 1926 the Supreme Court had contrived to side-step every occasion for a decisive p.r.o.nouncement regarding the removal power, its extent, and location. The point immediately at issue in the Myers case was the effectiveness of an order of the Postmaster General, acting by direction of the President, to remove from office a first cla.s.s postmaster, in face of the following provision of an act of Congress pa.s.sed in 1876: "Postmasters of the first, second, and third cla.s.ses shall be appointed and may be removed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and shall hold their offices for four years unless sooner removed or suspended according to law."[310] A divided Court, speaking through Chief Justice Taft, held the order of removal valid, and the statutory provision just quoted void. The Chief Justice"s main reliance was on the so-called "decision of 1789," the reference being to Congress"s course that year in inserting in the act establishing the Department of State a proviso which was meant to imply recognition that the Secretary would be removable by the President at will. The proviso was especially urged by Madison, who invoked in support of it the opening words of article II and the President"s duty to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Succeeding pa.s.sages of the Chief Justice"s opinion erect on this basis a highly selective account of doctrine and practice regarding the removal power down to the Civil War which was held to yield the following results: "That article II grants to the President the executive power of the Government, i.e., the general administrative control of those executing the laws, including the power of appointment and removal of executive officers--a conclusion confirmed by his obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed; that article II excludes the exercise of legislative power by Congress to provide for appointments and removals, except only as granted therein to Congress in the matter of inferior offices; that Congress is only given power to provide for appointments and removals of inferior officers after it has vested, and on condition that it does vest, their appointment in other authority than the President with the Senate"s consent; that the provisions of the second section of article II, which blend action by the legislative branch, or by part of it, in the work of the executive, are limitations to be strictly construed and not to be extended by implication; that the President"s power of removal is further established as an incident to his specifically enumerated function of appointment by and with the advice of the Senate, but that such incident does not by implication extend to removals the Senate"s power of checking appointments; and finally that to hold otherwise would make it impossible for the President, in case of political or other differences with the Senate or Congress, to take care that the laws be faithfully executed."[311]
The holding in the Myers case boils down to the proposition that the Const.i.tution endows the President with an illimitable power to remove all officers in whose appointment he has partic.i.p.ated with the exception of judges of the United States. The motivation of the holding was not, it may be a.s.sumed, any ambition on the Chief Justice"s part to set history aright--or awry.[312] Rather it was the concern which he voiced in the following pa.s.sage in his opinion: "There is nothing in the Const.i.tution which permits a distinction between the removal of the head of a department or a bureau, when he discharges a political duty of the President or exercises his discretion, and the removal of executive officers engaged in the discharge of their other normal duties. The imperative reasons requiring an unrestricted power to remove the most important of his subordinates in their most important duties must, therefore, control the interpretation of the Const.i.tution as to all appointed by him."[313] Thus spoke the former President Taft, and the result of his prepossession was a rule which, as was immediately pointed out, exposed the so-called "independent agencies," the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, and the like, to Presidential domination.
"The Nature of the Office" Concept
Unfortunately, the Chief Justice, while professing to follow Madison"s leadership had omitted to weigh properly the very important observation which the latter had made at the time regarding the office of Comptroller of the Treasury. "The Committee," said Madison, "has gone through the bill without making any provision respecting the tenure by which the comptroller is to hold his office. I think it is a point worthy of consideration, and shall, therefore, submit a few observations upon it. It will be necessary to consider the nature of this office, to enable us to come to a right decision on the subject; in a.n.a.lyzing its properties, we shall easily discover they are not purely of an executive nature. It seems to me that they partake of a judiciary quality as well as executive; perhaps the latter obtains in the greatest degree. The princ.i.p.al duty seems to be deciding upon the lawfulness and justice of the claims and accounts subsisting between the United States and particular citizens: this partakes strongly of the judicial character, and there may be strong reasons why an officer of this kind should not hold his office at the pleasure of the executive branch of the government."[314] In Humphrey _v._ United States,[315] decided in 1935, the Court seized upon "the nature of the office" concept and applied it as a much needed corrective to the Myers holding.
The Humphrey Case
The material element of this case was that Humphrey, a member of the Federal Trade Commission, was on October 7, 1933, notified by President Roosevelt that he was "removed" from office, the reason being their divergent views of public policy. In due course Humphrey sued for salary. Distinguishing the Myers case, Justice Sutherland, speaking for the unanimous Court, said: "A postmaster is an executive officer restricted to the performance of executive functions. He is charged with no duty at all related to either the legislative or judicial power. The actual decision in the _Myers_ Case finds support in the theory that such an office is merely one of the units in the executive department and, hence, inherently subject to the exclusive and illimitable power of removal by the Chief Executive, whose subordinate and aid he is. * * *
It goes no farther;--much less does it include an officer who occupies no place in the executive department and who exercise no part of the executive power vested by the Const.i.tution in the President.
"The Federal Trade Commission is an administrative body created by Congress to carry into effect legislative policies embodied in the statute * * * Such a body cannot in any proper sense be characterized as an arm or eye of the executive. Its duties are performed without executive leave and, in the contemplation of the statute, must be free from executive control. * * * We think it plain under the Const.i.tution that illimitable power of removal is not possessed by the President in respect of officers of the character of those just named, [the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Court of Claims]. The authority of Congress, in creating quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial agencies, to require them to act in discharge of their duties independently of executive control cannot well be doubted; and that authority includes, as an appropriate incident, power to fix the period during which they shall continue in office, and to forbid their removal except for cause in the meantime. For it is quite evident that one who holds his office only during the pleasure of another, cannot be depended upon to maintain an att.i.tude of independence against the latter"s will. * * *
"The result of what we now have said is this: Whether the power of the President to remove an officer shall prevail, over the authority of Congress to condition the power by fixing a definite term and precluding a removal except for cause, will depend upon the character of the office; the _Myers_ decision, affirming the power of the President alone to make the removal, is confined to purely executive officers; and as to officers of the kind here under consideration, we hold that no removal can be made during the prescribed term for which the officer is appointed, except for one or more of the causes named in the applicable statute."[316]
Other Phases of Presidential Removal Power
Congress may "limit and restrict the power of removal as it deems best for the public interests" in the case of inferior officers.[317] But in the absence of specific legislative provision to the contrary, the President may remove at his discretion an inferior officer whose term is limited by statute,[318] or one appointed with the consent of the Senate.[319] He may remove an officer of the army or navy at any time by nominating to the Senate the officer"s successor, provided the Senate approves the nomination.[320] In 1940 the President was sustained in removing Dr. E.A. Morgan from the chairmanship of TVA for refusal to produce evidence in substantiation of charges which he had levelled at his fellow directors.[321] Although no such cause of removal by the President is stated in the act creating TVA, the President"s action, being reasonably required to promote the smooth functioning of TVA, was within his duty to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." So interpreted, it did not violate the principle of administrative independence set forth in Humphrey _v._ United States.[322]
THE PRESIDENTIAL AEGIS
Presidents have more than once had occasion to stand in a protective relation to their subordinates, a.s.suming their defense in litigation brought against them[323] or pressing litigation in their behalf,[324]
refusing a call for papers from one of the Houses of Congress which might be used, in their absence from the seat of government, to their disadvantage,[325] challenging the const.i.tutional validity of legislation which he deemed detrimental to their interests.[326] There is one matter, moreover, as to which he is able to spread his own official immunity to them. The courts may not require the divulging of confidential communications from or to the President, that is, communications which they choose to regard as confidential.[327] Whether a Congressional Committee of inquiry would be similarly powerless is an interesting question which has not been adjudicated.[328] Thus far such issues between the two departments have been adjusted politically.
Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Amba.s.sadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and * * *
Legislative Role of the President
The above clause, which imposes a duty rather than confers a power, is the formal basis of the President"s legislative leadership, which has attained great proportions since 1900. This development, however, represents the play of political and social forces rather than any p.r.o.nounced change in const.i.tutional interpretation. Especially is it the result of the rise of parties and the accompanying recognition of the President as party leader, of the appearance of the National Nominating Convention and the Party Platform, and of the introduction of the Spoils System, an ever present help to Presidents in times of troubled relations with Congress.[329] It is true that certain pre-Civil War Presidents, mostly of Whig extraction, professed to entertain nice scruples on the score of "usurping" legislative powers;[330] but still earlier ones, Washington, Jefferson, and Jackson among them, took a very different line, albeit less boldly and persistently than their later imitators.[331] Today there is no subject on which the President may not appropriately communicate to Congress, in as precise terms as he chooses, his conception of its duty. Conversely, the President is not obliged by this clause to impart information which, in his judgment, should in the public interest be withheld.[332] The President has frequently summoned both Houses into "extra" or "special sessions" for legislative purposes, and the Senate alone for the consideration of nominations and treaties. His power to adjourn the Houses has never been exercised.
The Right of Reception
SCOPE OF THE POWER
"Amba.s.sadors and other public ministers" embraces not only "all possible diplomatic agents which any foreign power may accredit to the United States"[333] but also, as a practical construction of the Const.i.tution, all foreign consular agents, who therefore may not exercise their functions in the United States without an exequatur from the President.[334] The power to "receive" amba.s.sadors, etc., includes, moreover, the right to refuse to receive them, to request their recall, to dismiss them, and to determine their eligibility under our laws.[335]
Furthermore, this power makes the President the sole mouthpiece of the nation in its dealings with other nations.
A PRESIDENTIAL MONOPOLY
Wrote Jefferson in 1790: "The transaction of business with foreign nations is Executive altogether. It belongs, then, to the head of that department, except as to such portions of it as are specially submitted to the Senate. Exceptions are to be construed strictly."[336] So when Citizen Genet, envoy to the United States from the first French Republic, sought an exequatur for a consul whose commission was addressed to the Congress of the United States, Jefferson informed him that "as the President was the only channel of communication between the United States and foreign nations, it was from him alone "that foreign nations or their agents are to learn what is or has been the will of the nation;" that whatever he communicated as such, they had a right and were bound to consider "as the expression of the nation;" and that no foreign agent could be "allowed to question it," or "to interpose between him and any other branch of government, under the pretext of either"s transgressing their functions." Mr. Jefferson therefore declined to enter into any discussion of the question as to whether it belonged to the President under the Const.i.tution to admit or exclude foreign agents. "I inform you of the fact," he said, "by authority from the President." Mr. Jefferson therefore returned the consul"s commission and declared that the President would issue no exequatur to a consul except upon a commission correctly addressed."[337]
"THE LOGAN ACT"
When in 1798 a Philadelphia Quaker named Logan went to Paris on his own to undertake a negotiation with the French Government with a view to averting war between France and the United States his enterprise stimulated Congress to pa.s.s "An Act to Prevent Usurpation of Executive Functions,"[338] which, "more honored in the breach than the observance," still survives on the statute books.[339] The year following John Marshall, then a Member of the House of Representatives, defended President John Adams for delivering a fugitive from justice to Great Britain under the 27th article of the Jay Treaty, instead of leaving the business to the courts. He said: "The President is the sole organ of the nation in its external relations, and its sole representative with foreign nations. Of consequence, the demand of a foreign nation can only be made on him. He possesses the whole Executive power. He holds and directs the force of the nation. Of consequence, any act to be performed by the force of the nation is to be performed through him."[340] Ninety-nine years later a Senate Foreign Relations Committee took occasion to reiterate Marshall"s doctrine with elaboration.[341]
A FORMAL OR A FORMATIVE POWER?
In his attack, instigated by Jefferson, upon Washington"s Proclamation of Neutrality in 1793, at the outbreak of war between France and Great Britain, Madison advanced the argument that all large questions of foreign policy fell within the ambit of Congress, by virtue of its power "to declare war," and in support of this proposition he disparaged the Presidential function of reception, in the following words: "I shall not undertake to examine, what would be the precise extent and effect of this function in various cases which fancy may suggest, or which time may produce. It will be more proper to observe, in general, and every candid reader will second the observation, that little, if anything, more was intended by the clause, than to provide for a particular mode of communication, _almost_ grown into a right among modern nations; by pointing out the department of the government, most proper for the ceremony of admitting public ministers, of examining their credentials, and of authenticating their t.i.tle to the privileges annexed to their character by the law of nations. This being the apparent design of the const.i.tution, it would be highly improper to magnify the function into an important prerogative, even when no rights of other departments could be affected by it."[342]
THE PRESIDENT"S DIPLOMATIC ROLE
Hamilton, although he had expressed substantially the same view in The Federalist regarding the power of reception,[343] adopted a very different conception of it in defense of Washington"s proclamation.
Writing over the pseudonym "Pacificus," he said: "The right of the executive to receive amba.s.sadors and other public ministers, may serve to ill.u.s.trate the relative duties of the executive and legislative departments. This right includes that of judging, in the case of a revolution of government in a foreign country, whether the new rulers are competent organs of the national will, and ought to be recognized, or not; which, where a treaty antecedently exists between the United States and such nation, involves the power of continuing or suspending its operation. For until the new government is _acknowledged_, the treaties between the nations, so far at least as regards _public_ rights, are of course suspended. This power of determining virtually upon the operation of national treaties, as a consequence of the power to receive public ministers, is an important instance of the right of the executive, to decide upon the obligations of the country with regard to foreign nations. To apply it to the case of France, if there had been a treaty of alliance, offensive and defensive, between the United States and that country, the unqualified acknowledgment of the new government would have put the United States in a condition to become an a.s.sociate in the war with France, and would have laid the legislature under an obligation, if required, and there was otherwise no valid excuse, of exercising its power of declaring war. This serves as an example of the right of the executive, in certain cases, to determine the condition of the nation, though it may, in its consequences, affect the exercise of the power of the legislature to declare war. Nevertheless, the executive cannot thereby control the exercise of that power. The legislature is still free to perform its duties, according to its own sense of them; though the executive, in the exercise of its const.i.tutional powers, may establish an antecedent state of things, which ought to weigh in the legislative decision. The division of the executive power in the Const.i.tution, creates a _concurrent_ authority in the cases to which it relates."[344]
JEFFERSON"S REAL POSITION
Nor did Jefferson himself officially support Madison"s point of view, as the following extract from his "minutes of a Conversation," which took place July 10, 1793, between himself and Citizen Genet, show: "He asked if they [Congress] were not the sovereign. I told him no, they were sovereign in making laws only, the executive was sovereign in executing them, and the judiciary in construing them where they related to their department. "But," said he, "at least, Congress are bound to see that the treaties are observed." I told him no; there were very few cases indeed arising out of treaties, which they could take notice of; that the President is to see that treaties are observed. "If he decides against the treaty, to whom is a nation to appeal?" I told him the Const.i.tution had made the President the last appeal. He made me a bow, and said, that indeed he would not make me his compliments on such a Const.i.tution, expressed the utmost astonishment at it, and seemed never before to have had such an idea."[345]
THE POWER OF RECOGNITION
In his endeavor in 1793 to minimize the importance of the President"s power of reception Madison denied that it involved cognizance of the question, whether those exercising the government of the accrediting State have the right along with the possession. He said: "This belongs to the nation, and to the nation alone, on whom the government operates.
* * * It is evident, therefore, that if the executive has a right to reject a public minister, it must be founded on some other consideration than a change in the government, or the newness of the government; and consequently a right to refuse to acknowledge a new government cannot be implied by the right to refuse a public minister. It is not denied that there may be cases in which a respect to the general principles of liberty, the essential rights of the people, or the overruling sentiments of humanity, might require a government, whether new or old, to be treated as an illegitimate despotism. Such are in fact discussed and admitted by the most approved authorities. But they are great and extraordinary cases, by no means submitted to so limited an organ of the national will as the executive of the United States; and certainly not to be brought by any torture of words, within the right to receive amba.s.sadors."[346]
Hamilton, with the case of Genet before him, had taken the contrary position, which history has ratified. In consequence of his power to receive and dispatch diplomatic agents, but more especially the former, the President possesses the power to recognize new States, communities claiming the status of belligerency, and changes of government in established states; also, by the same token, the power to decline recognition, and thereby decline diplomatic relations with such new States or governments. The affirmative precedents down to 1906 are succinctly summarized by John Ba.s.sett Moore in his famous Digest, as follows: "In the preceding review of the recognition, respectively, of the new states, new governments, and belligerency, there has been made in each case a precise statement of facts, showing how and by whom the recognition was accorded. In every case, as it appears, of a new government and of belligerency, the question of recognition was determined solely by the Executive. In the case of the Spanish-American republics, of Texas, of Hayti, and of Liberia, the President, before recognizing the new state, invoked the judgment and cooperation of Congress; and in each of these cases provision was made for the appointment of a minister, which, when made in due form, const.i.tutes, as has been seen, according to the rules of international law, a formal recognition. In numerous other cases, the recognition was given by the Executive solely on his own responsibility."[347]
The Case of Cuba