Facts:
Adam Clayton Powell had been a member of the House of Representatives for twenty five years but became entangled in various legal controversies during the 89th Congress. An investigation was launched into his activities but Powell was re-elected to the 90th Congress. The House rejected the recommendation that he be censured, fined, and deprived of his seniority and instead voted to exclude Powell from the House. Speaker McCormack was to notify the governor of New York that the seat was vacant. Powell and thirteen constituents filed a lawsuit against McCormack claiming that the refusal to seat him violated the qualifications clause of the Constitution. The district court dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.…show more content… Can the House decide on its own that a member be excluded when duly elected by the people and he fulfills all qualifications set out by the Constitution?
2. Is this a question of justiciability for the courts or is this a separation of powers?
Holding:
The Supreme Court concluded that there was no need to remand the case.
1. Powell was duly elected by the voters of New York and was not ineligible to serve under any provision of the Constitution and the House was without power to exclude him from its membership.
2. Article 1 Section 5, the textual commitment formulation of the political question doctrine does not bar federal courts from adjudicating petitioners claim.
Analysis:
The Court had to look at the historical context in which the Constitution was written and the precedents that were adhered to previously. The framers had been very careful to say that the true principle of a republic is that the people should choose whom they please to govern them. Very few should be excluded. Article 1, Section 5 says a concurrence of two-thirds would be sufficient to expel a member of the House, but a simple majority was not Constitutional or legal to be able to exclude a
