 | United States. Supreme Court - 1838 - 850 str.
...that congress, cannot impose upon any executive officer any duty they may think proper, which is not repugnant to any rights secured and protected by the...are subject to the control of the law, and not to thfe direction of the President And this is emphatically the case, where the duty enjoined is of a... | |
 | Georgia. Supreme Court - 1850 - 660 str.
...that Congress cannot impose upon any executive officer, any duty they may think proper, which is not repugnant to any rights secured and protected by the...control of the law, and not to the direction of the President ; and this is emphatically the case where the duty enjoined is of a mere ministerial character."... | |
 | Illinois. Supreme Court - 1913 - 710 str.
...that Congress cannot impose upon any executive officer any duty they may think proper which is not repugnant to any rights secured and protected by the...control of the law and not to the direction of the President. And this is emphatically the case where the duty enjoined is of a mere ministerial character."... | |
 | Orlando Bump - 1878 - 474 str.
...upon any executive officer any duty it may think proper, which is not repugnant to any right which is secured and protected by the Constitution; and in...responsibility grow out of and are subject to the control of law. Kendall v. US 12 Pet. 524; s. C. 5 Cranch CC 163 ; Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137. Congress... | |
 | United States. Congress. House - 1881 - 868 str.
...protected by the Constitution; and his duty and responsibility in such cases grow out of and remain subject to the control of the law, and not to the direction of the President." The question, then, whether the head of a Department (who, within the proper sphere of... | |
 | David Dudley Field - 1884 - 532 str.
...Congress can not impose upon any executive officer any duty they may think proper, which is not repngnant to any rights secured and protected by the Constitution...control of the law, and not to the direction of the President. And this is emphatically the case where the duty enjoined is of a mere ministerial character."... | |
 | United States. Circuit Courts, Albert J. Brunner - 1884 - 772 str.
...that Congress cannot impose upon any executive officer any duty they may think proper, which is not repugnant to any rights secured and protected by the Constitution ; and in such cases the duty and the responsibility grow out of, and are subject to, the control of the law, and not to the direction... | |
 | District of Columbia. Supreme Court (1863-1936), Franklin Hubbell Mackey - 1887 - 640 str.
...that Congress cannot impose upon any executive officer any duty they may think proper, which is not repugnant to any rights secured and protected by the...control of the law, and not to the direction of the President." In that case the granting of the writ had been resisted upon the ground of want of authority... | |
 | 1887 - 1038 str.
...that Congress cannot impose upon any executive officer any dut}r they may think proper, which is not repugnant to any rights secured and protected by the...control of the law, and not to the direction of the President." In that ease the granting of the writ had been resisted upon the ground of want of authority... | |
 | Andrew Jackson Baker - 1891 - 378 str.
...direction. But the congress may impose ou such officers any duty they may think proper, which is not repugnant to any rights secured and protected by the constitution ; and in such cases the duties grow out of and are subject to the control of the law and not to the discretion of the president... | |
| |
There are certain political duties imposed upon many officers in the executive department, the discharge of which is under the direction of the President. But it would be an alarming doctrine, that congress cannot impose upon any executive officer any... 
