Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-2/clause-2/exclusivity-of-constitutional-qualifications
Timestamp: 2019-09-19 02:20:52
Document Index: 96446167

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 623', '§ 3', '§ 451', '§ 464', '§ 481', '§ 56', '§ 3', '§ 6', '§ 3']

Exclusivity of Constitutional Qualifications | U.S. Constitution Annotated | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
Congressional Additions.
Writing in The Federalist with reference to the election of Members of Congress, Hamilton firmly stated that “[t]he qualifications of the persons who may . . . be chosen . . . are defined and fixed in the constitution; and are unalterable by the legislature.”315 Until the Civil War, the issue was not raised, the only actions taken by either House conforming to the idea that the qualifications for membership could not be enlarged by statute or practice.316 But in the passions aroused by the fratricidal conflict, Congress enacted a law requiring its members to take an oath that they had never been disloyal to the National Government.317 Several persons were refused seats by both Houses because of charges of disloyalty,318 and thereafter House practice, and Senate practice as well, was erratic.319 But in Powell v. McCormack,320 it was conclusively established that the qualifications listed in clause 2 are exclusive321 and that Congress could not add to them by excluding Members-elect not meeting the additional qualifications.322
No. 60 (J. Cooke ed. 1961), 409. See also 2 J. STORY, COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES §§ 623–627 (1833) (relating to the power of the States to add qualifications). [Back to text]
All the instances appear to be, however, cases in which the contest arose out of a claimed additional state qualification. [Back to text]
Act of July 2, 1862, 12 Stat. 502. Note also the disqualification written into § 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. [Back to text]
1 HINDS ’ PRECEDENTS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES §§ 451, 449, 457 (1907). [Back to text]
In 1870, the House excluded a Member-elect who had been re-elected after resigning earlier in the same Congress when expulsion proceedings were instituted against him for selling appointments to the Military Academy. Id. at § 464. A Member-elect was excluded in 1899 because of his practice of polygamy, id. at 474–80, but the Senate refused, after adopting a rule requiring a two-thirds vote, to exclude a Member-elect on those grounds. Id. at §§ 481–483. The House twice excluded a socialist Member-elect in the wake of World War I on allegations of disloyalty. 6 CAN-NON ’ S PRECEDENTS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES §§ 56–58 (1935). See also S. REP. NO. 1010, 77th Congress, 2d sess. (1942), and R. Hupman, Senate Election, Expulsion and Censure Cases From 1789 to 1960, S. DOC. NO. 71, 87th Congress, 2d sess. (1962), 140 (dealing with the effort to exclude Senator Langer of North Dakota). [Back to text]
395 U.S. 486 (1969). The Court divided eight to one, Justice Stewart dissenting on the ground that the case was moot. Powell’s continuing validity was affirmed in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995), both by the Court in its holding that the qualifications set out in the Constitution are exclusive and may not be added to by either Congress or the states, id. at 787–98, and by the dissenters, who would hold that Congress, for different reasons could not add to qualifications, although the states could. Id. at 875–76. [Back to text]
The Court declined to reach the question whether the Constitution in fact does impose other qualifications. 395 U.S. at 520 n.41 (possibly Article I, § 3, cl. 7, disqualifying persons impeached, Article I, § 6, cl. 2, incompatible offices, and § 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment). It is also possible that the oath provision of Article VI, cl. 3, could be considered a qualification. See Bond v. Floyd, 385 U.S. 116, 129–131 (1966). [Back to text]
395 U.S. at 550. [Back to text]
H. REP. NO. 27, 90th Congress, 1st sess. (1967); 395 U.S. at 489–493. [Back to text]
Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 518–47 (1969). [Back to text]
395 U.S. at 522–31. [Back to text]
395 U.S. at 532–39. [Back to text]
395 U.S. at 539–41. [Back to text]
395 U.S. at 541–47. [Back to text]
395 U.S. at 547–48. [Back to text]
The protection of the voters’ interest in being represented by the person of their choice is thus analogized to their constitutionally secured right to cast a ballot and have it counted in general elections, Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651 (1884), and in primary elections, United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941), to cast a ballot undiluted in strength because of unequally populated districts, Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964), and to cast a vote for candidates of their choice unfettered by onerous restrictions on candidate qualification for the ballot. Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968). [Back to text]
Bond v. Floyd, 385 U.S. 116 (1966). [Back to text]
385 U.S. at 129–31, 132, 135. [Back to text]
385 U.S. at 135 n.13. [Back to text]