[woodpusher]

At some point, after his repeated posts misrepresenting the truth, we have to ask, is our new FRiend woodpusher stupid or just dishonest, or both?

In this example he has refused to recognize my actual view on the 1926 SCOTUS Meyers ruling, which is that I agree with the majority, written by Chief Justice Taft.

Oh goody! You agree with the 1926 SCOTUS Meyers ruling. Just for clarity and possible penetration, the ruling is the Opinion of the Court, and is most definitely not any part of any dissenting opinion.

It is good to see that you agree with the Opinion of the Court.

Regarding youur claimed precedent of Marbury, the Myers Court stated, that Marbury holds great authority in other matters, 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."

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." In other words, you failed to read and/or understand, Myers or Marbury.

Instead the 1867 Tenure of Office law was repealed by Congress in 1887, then mentioned in dicta by SCOTUS in it's 1926 Meyers ruling, saying it was "invalid", "insofar as it attempted to prevent the President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...".

So, does the 1926 in dicta comment of "invalid" equate to woodpusher's claims of "null and void ab initio"?

In their 1926 dissents, McReynolds, Brandeis and Holmes each gave reasons why Tenure was considered valid in 1868.

The 1926 dissents were the losing side. They played no role in the Opinion of the Court.

The dissents gave their argument. Their argument failed. The Opinion of the Court expounds the argument that prevailed.

But what he choses to ignore is the fact that I agree with the SCOTUS 1926 majority ruling.

You cite the dissenting opinions to do what? To establish that your argument, along with their argument, is the losing argument? Do make up you mind whether you agree with the Court ruling or the losing arguments of the dissenting justices.

I disagree that ruling made the 1867 Tenure of Office Act "null and void ab initio".

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 faculty, yours is Wikipedia. That is aside from the fact that one of us reads court opinions and the other seems allergic to them.

The Myers court held that it found the 1867 Tenure in Office Act to be unconstitutional, and based on that holding, it must find all subsequent legislation to the same effect to be unconstitutional and void.

Marbury (1803) has not changed since I last quoted it to you at #300:

As Marbury stated at 5 U.S. 178

If an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the Courts and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory, and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on.

For a statute, repugnant to the Constitution, to have ever been effective as a law, one must recognize the (non-existent) power of Congress to change the Constitution with a statute. There is no such power. The statute was enacted, the Constitution was the superior, supreme law, and any law in conflict with the Constitution is a nullity.

Statutes are treated by the other branches with a presumption of regularity until the Judiciary decides otherwise. A judicial holding of repugnance to the Constitution holds that the offending statute never became a law.

Your ignorant blustering is no substitute for knowledge.

Nor has Norton changed.

Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 441-442 (1886), Justice Field, Opinion of the Court

But it is contended that if the act creating the board was void, and the commissioners were not officers de jure, they were nevertheless officers de facto, and that the acts of the board as a de facto court are binding upon the county. This contention is met by the fact that there can be no officer, either de jure or de facto, if there be no office to fill. As the act attempting to create the office of commissioner never became a law, the office never came into existence. Some persons pretended that they held the office, but the law never recognized their pretensions, nor did the supreme court of the state. Whenever such pretensions were considered in that court, they were declared to be without any legal foundation, and the commissioners were held to be usurpers.

[...]

Their position is that a legislative act, though unconstitutional, may in terms create an office, and nothing further than its apparent existence is necessary to give validity to the acts of its assumed incumbent. That position, although not stated in this broad form, amounts to nothing else. It is difficult to meet it by any argument beyond this statement: an unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.

SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that every statute struck down as repugnant to the constitution was a nullity. It was not a law, it never became a law. It only had apparent existence as a law. In legal contemplation, it never actually existed as a law.

For your juvenile logic to apply, you must adopt the position that an unconstitutional act of Congress strikes down whatever of the Constitution it conflicts with, until a Court decides it is unconstitutional.

If the Constitution prohibits A, and a Statute legalizes A, only one may establish whether A is prohibited or legal. You would have an unconstitutional Statute be a valid enforceable law, which is only possible if the Statute takes precedent over the Constitution. Article VI of the Constitution provides that, "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution...." The Constitution takes precedent over all other laws.

Should Congress today pass and the President sign a statute establishing that abortion and gay marriage, constitutionally protected per the Supreme court, are capital offenses, would abortion and gay marriage be capital offenses? Would that statute be a valid law?

Could a State pass such a law every hour on the hour just to stay ahead of the courts? I must admit it is fun reducing your rants to the incoherent babbling that they really are.

As SCOTUS explicitly stated in Norton, "The act attempting to create the office of commissioner never became a law... an unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."

Your disagreement with the explicit holdings of SCOTUS is as legally insignificant as Stormy Daniels' virginity.

[BroJoeK]

So the "debate" continues as to whether or not President Andrew Johnson was impeached for breaking the 1867 Tenure of Office Act.
Woodpusher says "no" because in 1926 that law (repealed in 1887) was declared "invalid" by SCOTUS.
But woodpusher also admits that any law must be treated as valid until declared otherwise by the judiciary...

woodpusher: "It is good to see that you agree with the Opinion of the Court."

We should first notice that woodpusher only considers SCOTUS authoritative in rulings he agrees with, otherwise, not so much.

woodpusher: "The 1926 dissents were the losing side.
They played no role in the Opinion of the Court."

And that is also my view of anti-Federalists who lost their battle to prevent ratification of the Constitution, but later reemerged as Jeffersonian Democrats to nullify, eventually secede and declare war against the United States.
Their opinions are of no value in defining Founders Original Intent.

woodpusher: "It is not a dictum when it is necessary and central to the case...

'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 faculty, yours is Wikipedia.
That is aside from the fact that one of us reads court opinions and the other seems allergic to them."

"One of us", that would by woodpusher, consistently misrepresents his own quotes.
In this case your quote refers to "certain non-cabinet officials" and that was the 1876 law which was central to the 1926 Meyers ruling, not the repealed 1867 law, which was not directly involved.

"In 1926, a similar law (though not dealing with Cabinet secretaries) was ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Myers v. United States, which affirmed the ability of the President to remove a Postmaster without Congressional approval.
In reaching that decision, the Supreme Court stated in its majority opinion (though in dicta),
'that the Tenure of Office Act of 1867, insofar 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".[3]

It appears to me that at least some legal observers consider the 1926 Meyers' reference to the 1867 Tenure Law as "in dicta", so I'll take that as valid until I see something more than woodpusher's rantings to the contrary.

woodpusher: "You cite the dissenting opinions to do what?
To establish that your argument, along with their argument, is the losing argument?
Do make up you mind whether you agree with the Court ruling or the losing arguments of the dissenting justices. "

I agree the President can fire postmasters and the 1876 law was invalid.
That was the central issue in the 1926 Meyers ruling.
In 1926 the repealed 1867 Tenure law was not the issue and so was mentioned in dicta as also "invalid".
But you yourself posted:

"The other branches treat a statute as law until the Judiciary proclaims otherwise."

Since "the judiciary" could conceivably proclaim any statute unconstitutional, the government can in no way determine which laws may, 50+ years in the future, be declared "invalid".
That's why Tenure was valid law in 1868, so far as anyone then knew.

woodpusher: "Statutes are treated by the other branches with a presumption of regularity until the Judiciary decides otherwise.
A judicial holding of repugnance to the Constitution holds that the offending statute never became a law.
Your ignorant blustering is no substitute for knowledge."

And yet... in historical fact the 1867 Tenure Act was treated as law up until the date of its repeal, in 1887, still ~40 years before the SCOTUS 1926 ruling against it.
Your ignorant blustering is no substitute for facts.

woodpusher: "SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that every statute struck down as repugnant to the constitution was a nullity.
It was not a law, it never became a law.
It only had apparent existence as a law.
In legal contemplation, it never actually existed as a law.
For your juvenile logic to apply, you must adopt the position that an unconstitutional act of Congress strikes down whatever of the Constitution it conflicts with, until a Court decides it is unconstitutional."

That last is total nonsense because the truth is you yourself have posted:

1. post #300: "The other branches treat a statute as law until the Judiciary proclaims otherwise."

2. post #300: "Statutes are treated by the other branches with a presumption of regularity until the Judiciary decides otherwise."

3. post #310: "Statutes are treated by the other branches with a presumption of regularity until the Judiciary decides otherwise."

4. post #312: "Let me clarify for the willfully, legally, incompetent.
   The other branches treat a statute as if it were a valid law until the Judiciary proclaims otherwise.
   Only the Judicial Branch is vested with the power to establish that a Statute was and is unconstitutional, repugnant to the Constitution, and therefore null and void, and never capable of having become a valid law. "

So you have repeatedly confirmed my point, all the while heaping scorn on me for raising it.

woodpusher: "I must admit it is fun reducing your rants to the incoherent babbling that they really are."

It seems your idea of "fun" is to lie and lie big, but in doing so you only mock & embarrass yourself.