United States). Therefore Myers could not get compensation.
In the case of Humpreys Executor v. U.S. The deceased plaintiff in the case also brought a suit to the Court of Claims against the United States. The plaintiff was a Federal Trade Commissioner "nominated by President Hoover to succeed himself as a member of the Federal Trade Commission, and was confirmed by the United States Senate." He was given a seven-year term that was supposed to end in September of 1938. However after working for a short time in July of 1933 President Roosevelt asked the decease plaintiff to resign his position (Humphrey's Executor v. United States).." The request of the President was brought about because the president believed that the "aims and purposes of the Administration with respect to the work of the Commission can be carried out most effectively with personnel of my own selection,' but disclaiming any reflection upon the commissioner personally or upon his services (Humphrey's Executor v. United States).." "
The claims court lawsuit sought salary that was owed. This salary would have been earned "October 8, 1933, when the President undertook to remove him from office, to the time of his death on February 14, 1934 (Humphrey's Executor v. United States).." Again the power of the president to remove Humphrey was in question. The manner in which the court ruled would determine whether or not the petition for salary would be received. The court found that in this case the president did not have...
The court states that the statute already presented in this discussion did not pertain to the Federal Trade commission because it is a quasi-legislative body and as such the commissioner could not be removed simply because of his political ideologies. More specifically, in contrast to the Myers case involving the post office "The Federal Trade Commission…is an administrative body created by Congress to carry into effect legislative policies embodied in the statute in accordance with the legislative standard therein prescribed, and to perform other specified duties as a legislative or as a judicial aid. Such a body cannot in any proper sense be characterized as an arm or an eye of the executive. Its duties are performed without executive leave, and, in the contemplation of the statute, must be free from executive control (Humphrey's Executor v. United States)."
Conclusion
Both of these cases brought about a better understanding of executive and legislative powers. Although there was decent on both sides these cases have become important precedents in the understanding of presidential power. This is true particularly as it relates to appointed officials.
Works Cited
Myers v. United States. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgibin/getcase.pl?court=U.S.&vol=272&invol=52
Humphrey's Executor v. United States [*] (No. 637). http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0295_0602_ZS.html
