Powellv Mc Cormack 1969

Powell v. McCormack, 1969 The Constitution gives Congress the power to be the “Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members.” It establishes the age, citizenship, and residence requirements for the House and Senate. Does the Constitution allow Congress to judge qualifications beyond these three specific requirements? The case of Powell v. McCormack addressed this question. Background of the Case Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., was reelected to the House of Representatives in November 1966. However, a congressional investigation had already disclosed questionable activities by Powell and members of his staff during his previous terms. The House refused to seat Powell. In March 1967 Congress declared the seat vacant and notified the governor of New York to order a new election. Powell charged that he had been unlawfully excluded from his seat in the House and brought suit in the federal courts. Speaker John McCormack and four other officials were named as defendants. They responded that Congress had authority under the Constitution to judge the qualifications of its own members. The federal district court dismissed the complaint on the grounds that it did not have jurisdiction in this matter. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia refused to hear the case on the grounds that it was essentially a political question. The Supreme Court heard the case of Powell v. McCormack in 1969. The 90th Congress, to which Powell had been elected, was no longer in session. In the meantime (1968) Powell had been elected again and seated in the 91st Congress. His lawyers now asked the Court for back salary for the two years he was denied his seat. The Constitutional Issue One constitutional question was whether the case was justiciable - could be decided by the Court - under the Constitution. The defendants held that the case was not justiciable by the Court because the Constitution gave Congress, not the Court, power to judge the qualifications of its members. Further, defendants submitted that the question was “political” and therefore not justiciable by the Court. Finally, defendants asked whether the Court could coerce officers of the House or issue injunctions compelling officers or employees of the House to perform specific acts. Powell’s lawyers believed that Congress did not have the power to judge the moral qualifications of members. The Supreme Court referred to debates at the Constitutional Convention that related to giving Congress power to judge its members’ qualifications. Debating the Case Questions to Consider: 1. What might be a far-reaching result if the Court decided in favor of the Speaker? A far-reaching result could be that Powell could never get elected again, especially since the evidence was not completely proven. 2. What might be a far-reaching result if the Court decided in favor of Adam Clayton Powell, Jr.? A far-reaching result could be that they kick everyone off Congress for denying him a seat and going against the constitution. 3. Must Congress accept a member if he or she meets the basic tests - age, citizenship, and residency? No, that’s just the first stage. They need to actually be qualified and know something about the government to actually be useful. 4. Does Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., deserve back pay and restoration of his seniority rights? I believe he does solely because they did not prove the accusations at the time; therefore, he lost a seat when the crimes may not have been true