And yet our new FRiend woodpusher wishes us to buy his argument that the 1926 SCOTUS in dictum comments regarding the repealed 1867 Tenure of Office Act render that law "null and void ab initio".
woodpusher: "Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 137 (1803) was a case about an appointment, not a removal.It was impossible for Marbury to issue a holding, or set a precedent, about the President's removal authority.
A dictum never controls anything."
And yet our new FRiend woodpusher wishes us to buy his argument that the 1926 SCOTUS in dictum comments regarding the repealed 1867 Tenure of Office Act render that law "null and void ab initio".
I am the only one in the address line. Who are "our" and "us"? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? Do you fantasize that I am my own new FRiend? Do you have FRiends like that? I suspect you may.
It is not a dictum when it is necessary and central to the case.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/impeach/imp_tenure.html
In 1926, in the case of Myers vs. United States, the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice Taft, held unconstitutional a law requiring the consent of the Senate for removal of certain non-Cabinet officials
Aside from the observable fact that it is not a dictum, my source here is a law school, yours is Wikipedia and your own blather.
Regarding your claimed precedent of Marbury, the Myers Court stated, that Marbury holds great authority in other matter, but "is not to be regarded as such authority in respect of the power of the President to remove officials appointed by the advice and consent of the Senate, for that question was not before the Court." In other words, you failed to read and/or understand, Myers or Marbury.
And the Myers Court stated, "the Tenure of Office Act of 1867, in so far as it attempted to prevent the President from removing executive officers who had been appointed by him by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, was invalid...."
And the Myers Court continued, "... and that subsequent legislation of the same effect was equally so. For the reasons given, we most therefore hold that the provision of the law of 1876, by which the unrestricted power of removal of the first class postmasters is denied to the President, is in violation of the Constitution, and invalid."
Repealing an unconstitutional and void Statute, that, in legal contemplation never became a law, does not convert the void and unconstitutional Statute into a law.