Taxonomy of arguments about executive appointment and removal power
| What are the five pillars of the administrative state? Ballotpedia's five pillars of the administrative state provide a framework for understanding the authority, influence, and actions of administrative agencies, as well as the policies and arguments surrounding them. The five pillars focus on the control of administrative agencies related to the (1) legislative, (2) executive, and (3) judicial branches of government, (4) the public, and (5) other agencies or sub-agencies. |
| Five Pillars of the Administrative State |
|---|
|
| Executive control |
|
•Court cases |
| More pillars |
| •Agency control • Executive control •Legislative control • Public control |
| Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia.
|
| Click here to access Ballotpedia's administrative state legislation tracker. |
This page contains the main arguments related to the appointment and removal power and the executive control of the administrative state.
The scope of executive control over agency leadership through appointment and removal powers is a subject of debate in the administrative state. Supporters of strong presidential authority argue that broad appointment and removal powers promote good government and reflect the Constitution’s original design. Opponents contend that restrictions on these powers are themselves constitutional, better suited to changing historical circumstances, and necessary to ensure good government.
Arguments in favor of strong executive appointment and removal power
- Click the arrow (▼) in the list below to see claims under each argument.
1. Argument: Strong executive appointment and removal powers promote good government
- Claim: The removal power allows presidents to control administrative agencies
- Claim: The appointment power allows presidents to control administrative agencies
- Claim: Presidents have a better perspective on when officers should be removed than the Senate
- Claim: Presidential removal powers make the president accountable to the people
- Claim: At will tenure for agency officials helps courts promote stability and good government
- Claim: Bureaucrats insulated from the threat of presidential removal might become less motivated
- Claim: Presidents and other executives can implement their agendas if they do not face appointment or removal power restrictions
- Claim: Partisan balance requirements can limit agency effectiveness
2. Argument: Strong presidential removal power honors the original constitutional design
- Claim: Restrictions on the presidential removal power change the balance of powers under the U.S. Constitution
- Claim: Restrictions on the president’s appointment or removal power are unconstitutional
- Claim: It is a mistake to imply restraints on presidential control of agencies where the law is silent
Arguments against strong executive appointment and removal power
- Click the arrow (▼) in the list below to see claims under each argument.
1. Argument: Restrictions on the executive appointment and removal power promote good government
- Claim: Allowing the Senate to serve as a check on the president’s removal power would promote consistency in the administration of federal laws
- Claim: Requiring presidents to have good cause before removing officials promotes technical expertise and non-political administration of the laws
- Claim: Prescribing tenure of office for agency officials yields better administration of laws
- Claim: Partisan balance requirements for agency officials yield better results
- Claim: Restrictions on presidential control of agencies make officers more responsible for decisions
- Claim: Insulating agencies from at-will removal by the president slows the expansion of executive power
- Claim: Removal power is not an effective way for presidents to exercise political control over agencies
- Claim: Judicial interventions that promote the removal power can be harmful for democratic accountability
- Claim: Strong removal power is not required for the president to control agencies
- Claim: Exercising strong removal power can have political costs for the president
- Claim: Even though some statutes governing the president’s appointment and removal powers might violate the original understanding of that power, they are supported by longstanding congressional and presidential practice
- Claim: Restrictions on the removal power recognize that the federal government has to change with the times in order to promote efficiency and prevent tyranny
3. Argument: Restrictions on presidential appointment and removal powers are constitutional
