It didn't take Donald Trump long before he had a chance to use his famous catchphrase as president. He has now fired not only the Acting Attorney General, but also a growing number of high-ranking federal employees in a number of departments and agencies (the State Department, and today, the immigration enforcement agency). Whether this is a good thing for the country or even a good thing for Trump politically is debatable, of course. But no matter where you come down on the Trump firings so far, they are not in any way illegal or unconstitutional. The president has wide discretion to fire people, although only down to a certain red line.

The first such purge occurred when Thomas Jefferson took office, which was the first real transfer of power between two political parties in America. The 1800 election was so contentious it was actually labeled the "Revolution of 1800," as the Federalists were replaced by Jefferson's Anti-Federalists. Jefferson used the opportunity to sweep out a bunch of Federalist government employees, and replace them with his own supporters. Nothing in the Constitution prevented him from doing so, it's worth pointing out.

This system of patronage jobs continued in successive administrations. Each newly-elected president would be besieged by throngs of office-seekers, looking for plum administration jobs (postmaster positions were the most commonly handed out in such fashion, because at the time they represented a large portion of the federal workforce). When Andrew Jackson defeated John Quincy Adams, the system got a catchy name: the "spoils system." This came from a quote from William Marcy, a senator from New York, who was speaking in favor of Martin Van Buren's appointment as ambassador to England:

It may be, Sir, that the politicians of the United States are not so fastidious as some gentlemen are, as to disclosing the principles on which they act. They boldly preach what they practice. When they are contending for victory, they avow their intention of enjoying the fruits of it. If they are defeated, they expect to retire from office. If they are successful, they claim, as a matter of right, the advantages of success. They see nothing wrong in the rule, that to the victor belong the spoils of the enemy.

This has been shortened, over time, to just: "to the victor belong the spoils." Marcy's quote would be immortalized in the American political lexicon, although he has one further claim to fame few outside of New York realize -- the highest point in the state was named Mount Marcy.

Andrew Jackson called his policy "rotation in office," which was roundly denounced by the anti-Jackson press at the time. I wrote previously about this period:

This was prophesied as some sort of return of the French Revolution's "Reign of Terror" by the anti-Jacksons (predicting Jacobins running amok had been a common scare tactic in American politics since the 1790s). Rumors of the imminence of widespread and indiscriminate firings of federal officeholders ran rampant. Wild-eyed graphic stories were reported in the anti-Jackson press, such as one man who supposedly "cut his throat from ear to ear, from the mere terror of being dismissed."

In reality, the main targets Jackson's administration first fixed upon were people stuffing their pockets with graft -- or, as Jackson called them, "rats." The first man fired under the new policy fled Washington upon being discovered, and was later "apprehended, tried, convicted, and sentenced" for his fiscal irregularities. This gave the pro-Jackson press something to trumpet. When Jackson ran for re-election, the pro-Jackson papers described the successful removal from office of "a swarm of swindlers, who had filched from the public treasury upwards of $457,000." As Jackson biographer Robert V. Remini puts it: "Within a single year, by flushing out the rats, the administration reduced the expenditures of the Navy Department alone by $1 million" -- a significant amount, in 1829. When the real statistics became available, they showed that Andrew Jackson didn't fire all that many government functionaries when compared to previous administrations.

The patronage system did get rather out of hand in succeeding decades, and it became a major political bone of contention in the 1870s and 1880s. Fundamental reform was enacted, which split the federal workforce into two distinct groups -- political appointees (which were changed with each new administration), and the civil service (which was hired for experience and merit, theoretically). This red line still exists, and those who work below the red line are supposed to be secure in their jobs no matter who occupies the White House. The jobs are deemed non-political, in other words.

Political jobs, however, are fair game. George W. Bush swept house in the Justice Department, firing a slew of federal prosecutors (U.S. Attorneys). This was a major scandal, according to the Democrats at the time, but it was in no way unconstitutional. The president can clean house (down to a certain level) across all executive branch departments. The spoils system means the president doesn't even have to articulate a reason for doing so, in fact.

Donald Trump is obviously a big fan of the spoils concept. He's such a big fan that he seems to be the first one to take the quote literally (as you can read, from the context, it was originally spoken metaphorically). Trump has quoted this line in reference to all that Iraqi oil that America should have just seized (in his opinion). Their oil should have been treated as "the spoils of the enemy," according to Trump -- an opinion he has never disavowed, in fact. We'll have to wait and see whether it makes it into his new plan for attacking the Islamic State.

In terms of all the people Trump has told "You're fired!" to since the Trump reign began, though, he's on a lot more stable legal ground. He can indeed fire the Acting Attorney General, or the head of ICE, or any political appointee at the State Department he chooses.

The unanswered question is whether any of it will hurt Trump politically. Even though he may be on solid legal ground, will any of his firings create political blowback for him? Firing a placeholder Attorney General left over from the Obama administration isn't likely to cause much trouble for Trump politically, as she would have only had a few more days in the job before being replaced by Jeff Sessions (assuming he is confirmed by the Senate this week).

Political blowback for sweeping house in the executive branch is as old as the spoils system itself, it's worth keeping in mind. Jefferson was attacked for it, Jackson was attacked for it, and more recently George W. Bush was attacked for it by his political opponents. If Trump is just getting started firing people, then at some point he just might fire someone so obviously competent in the work they do that Trump might get more blowback than he expects. Firing a general who didn't agree with him is the first possibility that springs to mind, although there are certainly lots of others. Anything Trump sees as disloyalty or betrayal may lead in quick order to not only being fired, but being denounced from the Oval Office (or, at least, the presidential Twitter feed). Sooner or later, however, Trump might get more blowback than he can handle, when he tells someone with their own political base of support in Washington: "You're fired." So far, this hasn't happened, but it's certainly looking more and more likely.

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant