Talk:Tenure of Office Act (1867)

United States: Presidents / Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Law

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

I don't know enough about the topic to do it myself, but this article needs some real help. Looks like it was worked on by someone with rather poor English, or who was just being very hasty and imprecise. I've cleaned up some hanging bits of code, but the content is still pretty awful, especially in the abstract. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.197.59 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 28 May 2008

Also, Edwin Stanton was not a Republican, he was a Democrat from Ohio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.94.0.4 (talk) 12:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As John Kerry might say, Stanton was a Democrat before he was a Republican. During the period in question he was, indeed, a Republican. Eegorr (talk) 13:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Court finding in 1926

Was the Tenure of Office Act found to be invalid, as expressed in the quote at the end of the "Constitutionaliy" section, or was it "likely invalid", as it is described at the end of the third paragraph of the article? There should be consistency in this description. Thoughts? Eegorr (talk) 12:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]