The President commissions "all the Officers of the United States." (This means he gives these officers the power to do their jobs.) These include officers in both the military and foreign service (people who work for the United States government in other countries, like Ambassadors). However, Article One of the Constitution, Section 8, gives each state the power to appoint officers in their own militias.
The Constitution also allows some government officials to be removed from office (fired). The President, Vice President, Cabinet Secretaries, and other executive officers, as well as judges, may be impeached by the House of Representatives, and then tried in the Senate.
Anyone who is convicted by impeachment is fired immediately. The Senate may also choose to prevent the person from holding any federal office in the future. These are the only punishments that an impeachment proceeding can give. However, the person can still be tried for civil and criminal charges in the courts, and punished if they are found guilty.
Impeachment is a power that only Congress has. In "Nixon v. United States" (1993), the Supreme Court ruled that even they cannot review or change the Senate's decision in an impeachment trial. Its impeachment powers give Congress a way to make sure that no executive officials or judges are getting corrupt.
The Constitution says clearly that officials can be impeached for treason or bribery. But it does not say exactly what "High crimes and Misdemeanors" includes or does not include. "High crimes" is a phrase from old British law that means crimes committed by people with political power. However, in British history, "high crimes and misdemeanors" could include many different things (even losing a ship by not tying it up). After the Constitution was written, Alexander Hamilton explained in "The Federalist Papers" what kind of causes for impeachment the Founders had in mind: "offences which [come] from the abuse or violation of some public trust. [They cause] injuries done immediately to the society itself."
Congress has made the meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanors" clearer by who they have chosen to impeach, and why. Since the Constitution was ratified, the House of Representatives has impeached 18 people - mostly judges, but also two Presidents. All but three of these 18 were impeached for crimes other than treason or bribery. For example:
Dissenting opinion
A dissenting opinion (or dissent) is an opinion in a legal case. It is written by one or more judges expressing disagreement with the majority opinion of the court. In some cases, they simply declare a disagreement with the majority opinion. In other cases they may be used to instruct, prod, or otherwise try to convince other justices of the point of view expressed by the minority.
When not necessarily referring to a legal decision, this can also be referred to as a minority report.
Dissenting opinions are normally written at the same time as the majority opinion and any concurring opinions. They are also delivered and published at the same time. A dissenting opinion does not create binding precedent nor does it become a part of case law. However, they can sometimes be cited as a form of persuasive authority in subsequent cases when arguing that the court's holding should be limited or overturned. In some cases, a previous dissent is used to spur a change in the law. A later case may result in a majority opinion adopting a particular rule of law formerly advocated in dissent. As with concurring opinions, the difference in opinion between dissents and majority opinions can often highlight the precise holding of the majority opinion. Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes stated in 1936: "A dissent in a Court of last resort is an appeal".
The dissent may disagree with the majority for any number of reasons: a different interpretation of the existing case law, the application of different principles, or a different interpretation of the facts.
Legal opinion
In law, a legal opinion is usually a written explanation by a judge or group of judges that accompanies an order or ruling in a case. Legal opinions may also be written by legal experts. A legal opinion is used to lay out the rationale (reasons for) and legal principles for the ruling.
Opinions are usually published at the direction of the court. They may be used to reinforce, explain, change, establish, or overturn legal precedent. If a court decides that an opinion should be published, the opinion is included in a volume from a series of books called law reports or case reports. Published opinions of courts are also collectively referred to as case law, which is one of the major sources of law in common law legal systems.
Judicial opinion
A judicial opinion is a form of legal opinion written by a judge or a panel of judges explaining how they resolved a legal dispute. It cites the decision reached to resolve the dispute. A judicial opinion usually includes the reasons behind the decision. Where there are three or more judges, it may take the form of a majority opinion, minority opinion or a concurring opinion.
Concurring opinion
In law, a concurring opinion is a written opinion by one or more judges of a court which agrees with the decision made by the majority of the court, but states different (or additional) reasons for the decision. It may also be used to add comments. When no absolute majority of the court can agree on the basis for deciding the case, the decision of the court may be contained in a number of concurring opinions. The concurring opinion joined by the greatest number of judges is called the plurality opinion.
Having failed to receive a majority of the court's votes, concurring opinions are not binding precedent (common law) and cannot be cited as such. But concurring opinions can sometimes be cited as a form of persuasive precedent (assuming there is no binding precedent already in effect). The conflict in views between a majority opinion and a concurring opinion can assist a lawyer in understanding the points of law in the majority opinion. Occasionally, a judge will use a concurring opinion to signal that he or she is open to certain types of "test cases" that would allow the development of a new legal rule. In turn, such a concurring opinion may become more famous than the majority opinion in the same case. A well-known example of this phenomenon is "Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co." (1944).
In some courts, such as the Supreme Court of the United States, the majority opinion may be broken down into numbered or lettered parts. Concurring justices may state that they join some parts of the majority opinion, but not others, for the reasons given in their concurring opinion. In other courts, such as the Supreme Court of California, the same justice may write a majority opinion "and" a separate concurring opinion to express additional reasons in support of the judgment
Seriatim
In law, seriatim (Latin for "in series") indicates that a court is addressing multiple issues in a certain order, such as the order that the issues were originally presented to the court.
A seriatim opinion describes an opinion delivered by a court with multiple judges, in which each judge reads his or her own opinion rather than a single judge writing an opinion on behalf of the entire court. This is a practice generally used when a legal case does not have a majority opinion.
Use of the word, and other Latin phrases, has become less frequent in legal communications as a result of, among other factors, efforts by groups such as the Plain Language Movement to promote the use of "plain English" in legal discourse.