“In strict accordance with this principle, the power of removal, which, like that of appointment, is an original executive power, is left unchecked by the Constitution in relation to all executive officers, for whose conduct the President is responsible; while it is taken from him in relation to judicial officers, for whose acts he is not responsible. In the government from which many of the fundamental principles of our system are derived, the head of the executive department originally had power to appoint and remove at will all officers, executive and judicial. It was to take the judges out of this general power of removal, and thus make them independent of the executive, that the tenure of their offices was changed to good behavior.  Nor is it conceivable why they are placed, in our Constitution, upon a tenure different from that of all other officers appointed by the executive, unless it be for the same purpose.”

Mr. President, I do most solemnly protest (if I, too, may be permitted to make a protest) against this mode of reasoning.  The analogy between the British constitution and ours, in this respect, is not close enough to guide us safely; it can only mislead us.  It has entirely misled the writer of the Protest.  The President is made to argue, upon this subject, as if he had some right anterior to the Constitution, which right is by that instrument checked, in some respects, and in other respects is left unchecked, but which, nevertheless, still derives its being from another source; just as the British king had, in the early ages of the monarchy, an uncontrolled right of appointing and removing all officers at pleasure, but which right, so far as it respects the judges, has since been checked and controlled by act of Parliament; the right being original and inherent, the check only imposed by law.  Sir, I distrust altogether British precedents, authorities, and analogies, on such questions as this.  We are not inquiring how far our Constitution has imposed checks on a pre-existing authority.  We are inquiring what extent of power that Constitution has granted.  The grant of power, the whole source of power, as well as the restrictions and limitations which are imposed on it, is made in and by the Constitution.  It has no other origin.  And it is this, Sir, which distinguishes our system so very widely and materially from the systems of Europe. Our governments are limited governments; limited in their origin, in their very creation; limited, because none but specific powers were ever granted, either to any department of government, or to the whole:  theirs are limited, whenever limited at all, by reason of restraints imposed at different times on governments originally unlimited and despotic.  Our American questions, therefore, must be discussed, reasoned on, decided, and settled, on the appropriate principles of our own constitutions, and not by inapplicable precedents and loose analogies drawn from foreign states.