Talk:Myers v. United States

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Oregon Low‑importance

	Oregon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

I've removed the following paragraph from this article:

"The Petitioner claims that because he was a First-Class Postmaster, that this law certainly applied to his case, and that Wilson would have needed to get the consent of the Senate to dismiss him. He demanded back pay for the entirety of his unemployment. If this law were passed constitutionally, I most defiantly would have ruled for the Petitioner. However, in this case, Myers v. U.S., I rule for the respondent. The respondent would have made the argument that the law was not constitutional in the first place, because under Article II of the Constitution, it states that the President has the power of removal of executive officers."

After a lengthy search of the decision, I found that this text is not part of the decision. I assume the contributor wrote this imagining themself to be a justice of the supreme court, but it certainly does not belong here. If it was paraphrasing, it can be re-instated, but should be noted as such. Skyler 01:57, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)