This article is excerpted from the forthcoming Volume X of the Oliver Wendell Holmes Devise History of the Supreme Court of the United States, which covers the period 1921-1930 when William Howard Taft was Chief Justice. The article will be published in an upcoming issue of the Journal of Supreme Court History. The article offers for the first time a detailed account of the process by which William Howard Taft authored his pathbreaking opinion in Myers v. United States, the first Supreme Court decision ever to hold a statute of Congress unconstitutional because incompatible with Article II prerogatives of the President. The decision was six to three, featuring strong dissents by Brandeis, McReynolds, and Holmes. Using archival sources, the article discusses competing views within Taft’s majority coalition of six, as well as Taft’s own independent views about the question of the presidential power of removal. Analyzing the reasoning of Myers in detail, the article argues that the decision is neither an example of originalism, as Justice Antonin Scalia has claimed, nor is it compatible with contemporary understandings of the “unitary” executive.

中文翻译：

---

单一行政机构的紧张局势：塔夫脱如何构建迈尔斯诉美国的划时代意见

本文摘自即将出版的《美国最高法院的奥利弗·温德尔·霍姆斯设计史》第 X 卷，该卷涵盖了威廉·霍华德·塔夫脱 (William Howard Taft) 担任首席大法官的 1921-1930 年期间。这篇文章将发表在即将出版的《最高法院历史杂志》上。这篇文章首次详细介绍了威廉·霍华德·塔夫脱 (William Howard Taft) 在 Myers v. United States 一案中撰写他开创性意见的过程，这是最高法院有史以来第一次裁定国会制定违宪的决定，因为与第二条特权不符。总统。这个决定是六比三，布兰代斯、麦克雷诺兹和福尔摩斯强烈反对。文章使用档案资料讨论了塔夫脱的六人多数联盟内的竞争观点，以及塔夫脱本人对总统罢免权问题的独立看法。文章详细分析了迈尔斯的推理，认为该决定既不是安东宁·斯卡利亚大法官所声称的原创主义的例子，也不符合当代对“单一”行政机构的理解。