Executive Power Scholarship: A Three Level Problem
- The debate centers on the extent of the President's power to remove executive officials and Congress's ability to regulate that power.
- Bamzai & Prakash's response to Katz & Rosenblum highlights ambiguities in Mortenson's thesis regarding executive power.
- The discourse has revealed ideological tensions in the legal academy and raised concerns about scholarly integrity.
The ongoing debate surrounding the President's power to remove executive branch officials has resurfaced, highlighting the constitutional complexities involved. Scholars Bamzai & Prakash have responded sharply to Katz & Rosenblum's arguments, which suggest that Mortenson's work undermines their position on executive removal power. The discourse reveals a significant ambiguity regarding the interpretation of executive power, particularly whether it encompasses removal authority or is limited to law execution. This ambiguity complicates the relationship between executive authority and Congress's regulatory powers over law enforcement. The scholarly exchange has sparked considerable online reaction, reflecting deeper ideological tensions within the legal academic community regarding executive power. The situation has raised concerns about scholarly integrity and the norms of academic discourse, indicating a need for more careful engagement among constitutional law scholars.