Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
John Bingham on the President as an "officer of the United States"
Gerard N. Magliocca
Another issue in the Section Three debate is whether the President is an "officer of the United States." There are several angles to that discussion, but let me focus on one. How did John Bingham talk about that question at two high-profile moments during Reconstruction?
First, in 1865 Bingham gave the closing argument in the military trial of the conspirators to President Lincoln's assassination. Here is how he described the charges to the court:
"[C]onspiracy, in aid of a rebellion, with intent to kill and murder the Executive officer of the United States, and commander of its armies, and of the murder of the President in pursuance of that conspiracy."
Thus, Bingham equated "the Executive officer of the United States" with the President. He did the same thing in an 1868 speech in the House, where he said: "It is vain that gentlemen stand here and intimate that the President, because he is the executive officer of the United States . . . is above any statute."
Later in 1868, Bingham gave the closing argument in President Johnson's impeachment trial. Bingham argued that Johnson committed a "high crime and misdemeanor" by violating the Tenure of Office Act based on his view that the Act was unconstitutional. (Set aside what you think of that claim for purposes of this post.) Bingham explained that it was clear that a judge would not be "charged with usurpation" if he set aside a law as unconstitutional:
"And is it not equally clear that a mere executive official of the United States, clothed with no judicial authority, and bound by his authority to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, who should thus decide or attempt to set aside as null and void a law of the United States, would be guilty of usurpation?"
Again, Bingham said that the President was an "official of the United States." He was not alone in this usage, of course, as President Johnson and many others at the time made the same point.