It is now reaffirmed that Congress cannot participate in the dismissal of officials who exercise executive functions. It is also clear that Congress has considerable discretion in creating executive branches and creating independent agencies when it comes to limiting by law the power to remove the president or other appointing authority. It follows from the view that the margin of appreciation is not unlimited, that there are functions that may be indispensable to the exercise of the powers and functions conferred by the Constitution on the President, so that restrictions on impeachment would be inadmissible. There is no clear line separating one office from another, but the decision must be carefully analyzed.600 The clear wording of section 4 appears to require impeachment on conviction and, in fact, the Senate has removed those it has convicted. At Justice Ritter`s trial in 1936, the Senate ruled that impeachment is automatic on conviction and does not require a separate vote.854 This practice continued. Since a two-thirds majority is required for a conviction, this means that impeachment can only take place on the basis of a two-thirds majority. Unlike impeachment, impeachment is a discretionary judgment and there is no explicit constitutional connection to the two-thirds majority on conviction. Although it may be argued that disqualification nevertheless required a two-thirds majority,855 the Senate has determined that disqualification can occur by a simple majority.856 Normally, a plaintiff has the right to choose the court in which to bring an action. An important exception to this rule is the defendant`s right to have a case transferred from state court to federal court in certain circumstances. Federal law explains this right of expulsion in detail.
It is only available if the Federal Court has jurisdiction to hear such a case. This right can only be invoked by a defendant; A plaintiff may not seek the dismissal of proceedings it has commenced in state court, even after the defendant has filed a counterclaim against the plaintiff that would justify the exercise of federal jurisdiction. At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the leading source of free legal information and resources on the Internet. Contact us. The Watergate controversy. A dispute has arisen over the dismissal of the special prosecutor appointed to investigate and prosecute violations of the law in the Watergate case. Congress gave the attorney general the power to conduct federal criminal trials,583 and also authorized him to appoint subordinate officials to assist him in the performance of his duties.584 Under the direction of the president, the attorney general appointed a special Watergate prosecutor with broad powers to investigate and prosecute crimes arising from the Watergate burglary. the 1972 presidential election and allegations involving the president, White House staff, or presidential appointees. He was to remain in office until a date mutually agreed between the Prosecutor General and him, and the regulation provided that the Special Prosecutor „may not be removed from office except in the case of exceptional irregularities on his part“. 585 On October 20, following the resignation of the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General, the Attorney General, as acting Attorney General, formally dismissed the Special Prosecutor586 and, three days later, repealed the decree establishing the office.587 In a subsequent legal dispute, a federal district court ruled that the dismissal by the acting Attorney General violated the rules. which were in force at the time and were to be respected until they were repealed.588 In United States v.
Nixon589 appeared to confirm this district court`s analysis by upholding the new special counsel`s authority to sue the president for evidence in the president`s possession. Two issues remained unresolved, the power of the president himself to go over the heads of his subordinates and remove the special counsel himself, regardless of the regulations, and the power of Congress to enact legislation establishing a special counsel`s office free from the direction and control of the president.590 When Congress acted, In order to create an office, first the special prosecutor and then the independent adviser, the solution of the issue became necessary. n.1) the modification of a dispute from one court to another, for example from a state court to a federal court or vice versa on the basis of a request by one of the parties stating that the other court is more appropriate for the case. 2) Removal from the position of public official for cause, such as dishonesty, incompetence, conviction of a crime or successful dismissal. If a plaintiff has more than one claim against a defendant and not all claims can be remanded, it is not clear whether the entire matter should be referred to the appropriate federal court. Sometimes, individual claims that support federal jurisdiction can be severed and heard individually in Federal Court. This can happen if the removable claims are so different that they can be determined by themselves. Otherwise, they must be tried together. A federal court has the discretion to assess the circumstances and decide each case on its own facts. The plaintiff`s right to choose the court must be balanced against the defendant`s right to go to federal court if there is federal jurisdiction. The same considerations apply when there are multiple defendants, and some have the right to have the case withdrawn, but others are not.