William Howard Taft Court Cases

William Howard Taft was born on September 15, 1857 in Cincinnati, Ohio. He was born to Alphonso Taft and his second wife Louisa Maria Torrey Taft. His father Alphonso Taft was the first person in the Taft family to become nationally prominent. He worked at the Ohio Superior Court for two terms. After his work at the Ohio Superior Court he then went on to be named U.S. attorney general and eventually earned the title of secretary of war during the presidency of Ulysses S. Grant. When president Chester A. Arthur became president, Taft was appointed to be an ambassador to Austria-Hungary and Russia (Crushman 341-342). William Taft was a very active child. He played sports and danced, even though he was somewhat obese. He was very good at playing

Corrigan, there was a fight between the plaintiffs and the defendants’ union. The fight was over the terms and conditions involved in the employment of members of the union. The plaintiffs would not yield to the the conditions of the union. This lead to a strike of the members who are the defendants. Unknown to the plaintiffs the defendants conspired to injure the plaintiffs in the restaurant that they own. The defendants wanted to cause the plaintiffs customers to be seen as unfair and cause customers to not want to eat at the plaintiff’s restaurant the “English Kitchen”. The strike was considered to be labor picketing. The defendants let the patrons know about the strike. They also handed out handbills which comprised of many abusive and libelous charges against the plaintiffs. This strike and damaging of the reputation of the plaintiff’s restaurant had caused a loss of funds the restaurant would usually receive if the defendants had not slander the name of the restaurant and the plaintiffs who owned it (google

United States, is about limiting the power that the president has to remove subordinates (Arnold). A law from 1876 allows for the appointment and the removal of postmaster by the president. In this law the president does not have to seek any approval from the senate in order to remove the postmasters. The reason this case went to the supreme court was to see if the Act was unconstitutional in how much power the president has in being able to appoint and remove officials. Chief Justice Taft concluded that the power to remove appointed officers is vested in the President alone. According to Taft, to deny the President that power would not allow him to "discharge his own constitutional duty of seeing that the laws be faithfully executed” (oyez). This was a major case because it was a issue that could have further limited the power of the