[woodpusher]

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And yet our new FRiend woodpusher wishes us to buy his argument that the 1926 SCOTUS in dictum comments regarding the repealed 1867 Tenure of Office Act render that law "null and void ab initio".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.

[BroJoeK]

woodpusher: "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."

Are you just a bit paranoid and is that a recognized handicap for which you receive, say, special parking privileges?
I was actually thinking about the other names on previous address lists, notably OIFVeteran, which I then forgot to add to the post.
But go right ahead, let your imagination run wild, especially regarding the alleged... ah, mouse in my pocket.
If that gets to be too disturbing for you, then call 911.

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

Mere common sense would ask, how can a law repealed nearly 40 years earlier be "central" to the 1926 SCOTUS ruling?
The actual central law dated from 1876 and was similar to, but not the same as the 1867 Tenure Act.

woodpusher: "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."

It was Justice Brandeis in dissent who mentioned Marbury and I can add another precedent, the 1820 Tenure of Office Act, also considered unconstitutional by ex-president James Madison, but passed by Jeffersonian Democrats and signed by President Monroe.
And just so we're clear, my point here is not to dispute Chief Justice Taft in 1926, only to show why, in 1867 the Tenure of Office act was thought of as valid.

woodpusher: "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."

Again quoting woodpusher from previous posts:

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."