Removal of Context: Blackstone, Limited Monarchy, and the Limits of Unitary Originalism

This article is part of a series on Article II, questioning the unitary theory’s three pillars: Executive Vesting Clause, Take Care Clause (or “Faithful Execution” clauses), and Decision 1789 more accurately, Indecisions 1789). “Removal Context” focuses “executive power” Clause: Did imply supervision removal in eighteenth century? What do theorists cite to support their claim that includes removal, “indefeasibly” so? Unitary executive theorists’ reliance English Crown seventeenth centuries, but they overlook or obscure problems relying England’s limited monarchy, era’s rise Parliamentary supremacy over its power eliminate regulate (i.e., make defeasible) royal prerogatives. There appears be no evidence was ever conceived as “royal prerogative” at all, historical record indicates king did not have general pleasure. The structure comparison has major flaw: They concede Constitution explicitly limits many core powers, such war, peace (treaties), veto, so president weaker than king, somehow II implies unnamed powers” (like removal) stronger king? Moreover, there were eighteenth-century prerogatives related law execution (prorogue dissolution), one claims them. When investigates closely follows sources, finds pattern misinterpreting especially Blackstone amicus briefs review articles scholarship. In particular, recent brief by scholars Seila Law misinterprets Blackstone’s use word “disposing” offices removing, instead dispensing appointing (which are indicated context usage) then misquotes passage from Blackstone, reversing his meaning uncertainty about relevant certain positive removal. These misreadings just small narrow errors. significant points: fundamentally favor parliamentary supremacy, against “indefeasible” powers; never mentions prerogative power, which powerful counter-evidence assumptions. errors also cautionary moment originalist methods notion originalism reliable objective other interpretation.