Evening star., 1951-06-23
The Political Mil
House Vote Questioned
On I'D Amendment
Only ITO Members Declared
Present at Final Action
By Gould Lincoln

The legality of the submission Of thu
22d amendment (the tWo-term prest
dental amendment of the Constitution
has been questioned by David G. Far
reilly. assistant professor of politica
science, U. c. L. A, Los Angeles. Prof
Farrelly questions. to be specific, thl
final action of the House of Rep
resentatives, which was the acceptance
of Senate amendments to the resolution
proposing the amendment limiting thu
tenure of Office in the White House. Hi
criticism runs to the fact that the Sen
ate amendments were agreed to by thu
House with only ITO members voting.
Prof. Farrellys comments have beer
handed to Senator Mike Monroney
Democrat, of Oklahoma. The Oklahoma
Senator, however, has not indicated HI
plans to do anything about the matter
In making his case Prof. Farrell1
said:
THE Constitution requires two third
of both houses to propose amendments
The Supreme Court has interpreted thii
to mean a tWo-thirds vote assuming
the presence of quorum (nationa
prohibition cases, 1920. do not doubs
that a full two-thirds majority could
have been mustered at the time. Aftei
all, the initial passage in the House had
been by vote of 285 to 121." -
The fact is. however, there is no evil
dence that there were more than III
members present on the floor when thu
important vote to change the ConStitu'
ton was taken. 1t seems extremely un'
likely that there were 100 or more
Representatives in attendance but moi
voting on such solemn occasion. And
a quorum for action should have called
for some PIG members on the floor of the
House
What Actually Happened.
What actually happened in the Houst
as follows:
of the Judiciary Committee). Mr.
Speaker, move the previous question
The previous question was ordered.
The question was taken: And on
division demanded by Mr.. Thomason
Democrat of Texas there were-ayei
81, noes 90.
Mr. Forand Democrat Of. Rhodt
Island). Mr.. Speaker, object to tht
vote on the ground a quorum is no,
present
The Speaker. The chair will count
Mr.. Forand. "Mr. Speaker. with
draw the point of order" So (two'
thirds having voted in favor thereof
the Senate amendments were concurret
in. A motion to reconsider this laid Oh
the table.
Prof. Farrelly asks: Can the fiction
of quorum be maintained in the fact
Of the fact that a vote Of ITO wal
recorded? No Representatives were LISTED
as being present but not voting. On sucl
a serious matter as changing the Consti
tuition no assumption as to a quorum u
warranted"
Vote by Division Only.
The vote of which Prof Farrelly com
plains was not a yea-and-nay vote
but by division only, with member
standing as the Speaker counted. Par
liamentarians at the Capitol frankly
take little stock in the objections RAISED
by Prof. Farrelly. They point out tha
the Constitution, in the paragraph deal
ing with the submission of proposet
amendments to the Constitution, doe
not call for a yea-and-nay-or roll cal
vote. In fact, the demand for sucl
a vote found in the Constitution is il
connection with votes to override presi
dental vetoes. Further, they insist tha
it is not possible to go behind reso
luton or other action of Congress which
has been signed by the presiding Off
GERS of the House and Senate.
PrecedentS in the House uphold thu
parliamentarians. Yea-and-nay votes,
has been ruled again and again bl
Speakers, are not necessary on resolu.
tions proposing constitutional amend
ments-unless the House orders sucl
votes. This was the ruling of John
Corliss of Michigan, in 1920, when
direct-election- n-of-Senators amendment
was before the House. A similar rulini
was made by Speaker Nicholas Long
worth on March 8, 1928. When the so
called lame duck session of Congress
amendment was before that body. ]
has been a practice, however, to haW
-and-nay votes on important pro
posed amendments to the Constitution
With the likelihood of President Tru
man running to succeed himself fo
what would be virtually third tern
looming larger, and the fact that |
third-term issue would undoubtedly 81
into the campaign, the question raiset
by Prof. Farrelly has its interest. al
though how to attack the validity d
the 22d amendment, which has beeI
ratified by the States, is a question fo