Morrison Vs Olson Case Analysis

Now, we address the following issues: Is it within Congress’s authority to remove an officer of the executive branch and appoint another in office? Does the act also violate the separation of power doctrine by granting the House of representative the authority to review and reject policies implemented by the new director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons? I argue that the act did not violate the principles of the constitution. The mechanisms set forth to appoint and remove a government official differs based on whether the person in question is a principal officer, or an inferior officer. In Morrison v. Olson, Justice Rehnquist describes how the two differ for purposes of appointment. “Principal officers are selected by the President with the advice

Inferior officers Congress may allow to be appointed by the president alone, by the heads of departments, or by the Judiciary.” (Morrison v. Olson p.420)

Article II of the U.S Constitution gives the executive branch and the President, not congress, the power to appoint federal officials. In Morrison v Olson, the Court was presented with a case in relation to the constitutionality of appointment of an Independent Counsel to investigate the wrong-doings of the executive branch. The Appellees advanced that Congress had violated the principles of the separation of powers by appointing an independent Counsel which they argued were “principal officers” and interfered with the operations and effectiveness of the executive branch. The Supreme Court held that Congress did not violate the constitution because the independent Counsels were “inferior officers” and thus subject to removal by the Attorney General. In regards to the removal of executive officers, Article II, Section 4 of U.S Constitution states that “The president,