Powell v mccormack
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Background and Facts of the Case
Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., a senior member of the U.S. House of Representatives, was embroiled in scandals (refusing to pay a judgment ordered by a court in New York, misappropriating Congressional travel funds, and illegally paying his wife a Congressional staff salary for work not done).
When the 90th Congress convened, Speaker of the House John William McCormack asked Representative Powell to abstain from taking the oath of office. Then, the House passed H.Res.1, which excluded Powell from taking his seat and created a Select Committee to investigate Powell’s misdeeds. After the Select Committee conducted its investigation and hearings, the House passed H.Res.278, which again excluded Powell from Congress and also censured him, fined him $40,000, took away his seniority, and declared his seat vacant.
Powell, along with thirteen of his constituents, responded by filing suit in Federal District Court. He named Speaker of the House John William McCormack and five other members as defendants. He also named the Clerk of the House, the Sergeant at Arms, and even the Doorkeeper. Most of these parties were named in an effort to get injunctions barring the enforcement of H.Res.278:
-
- To prevent the Speaker from refusing to administer the oath of office
- To prevent the Clerk from "refusing to perform the duties due a Representative"
- To prevent the Sergeant at Arms from withholding Powell’s salary
- To prevent the Doorkeeper from barring Powell from Congressional chambers
The suit claimed that excluding Powell amounted to an expulsion but that an expulsion would not have garnered the necessary two-thirds vote.
The suit was dismissed by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. An appeals court overturned their ruling, stating that the federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction but dismissed the case nonetheless for a lack of justiciability.
While the suit was making its way through the court system, Powell was re-elected and ultimately re-seated in the 91st Congress, which passed H.Res.2 that only fined him $25,000. Because he was seated when the case came to court, the defendants argued that the case was moot.
[edit] Primary Legal Question
Can the House exclude a member based on criteria other than the constitutional requirements for office holders if that member has been elected and meets the constitutional requirements to hold office?
[edit] Constitutional Issues of this case
Congressional power to develop qualifications other than those specified (Art. I, § 2, cl. 1-2)
Congressional power to exclude rather than impeach or expel (Art. I, § 2, cl. 5; Art. I, § 5, cl. 2)
Judicial review versus Congressional power to be the judge of its qualifications (Art. I, § 5, cl. 1) Supreme Court Jurisdiction and Justiciability (Art. III)
Rights of the electorate to elect their Representative
[edit] Majority Decision
Author of the majority opinion: Chief Justice Warren
Signers of the majority opinion: Black, Brennan, Douglas, Harlan, Marshall, White
Congress does not have the power to develop qualifications other than those specified in Art. I, § 2, cl. 1-2.
Congress being the sole judge of its members’ qualifications (Art. I, § 5, cl. 1) and the Speech and Debate Clause (Art. I, § 6) do not preclude judicial review of Constitutional issues because “no branch is supreme” and it is the duty of the court to ensure that all branches conform to the Constitution.
The case is justiciable. It does not constitute a political question that pits one branch against the other. Rather, it “requires no more than an interpretation of the Constitution.”
It is unclear whether a vote of two-thirds would have been reached if the resolution had specified expulsion (Art. I, § 2, cl. 5; Art. I, § 5, cl. 2) rather than exclusion. Therefore, the two terms – expulsion and exclusion – cannot be equated; rather, they must be differentiated. Also, the framers did not intend for Congress to be able to refuse seating to a member without the two-thirds vote to expel.
[edit] Concurring Opinion, Written by Douglas
Justice Douglas wrote the only concurring opinion of this case. It stated that qualifications that are not part of the Constitution may not be added except through constitutional amendment. Therefore, Congress cannot exclude a member except through a two-thirds vote to expel.
[edit] Dissent, Written by Stewart
Justice Stewart wrote a dissenting opinion that said that the case should not have been heard by the U.S. Supreme Court because the case was moot because Powell had already been seated in the 91st Congress by the time the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
[edit] Non-Voting Justice
Justice Fortas was embroiled in his own scandal and did not vote on this case.
