Case BriefCon law, Checks on Judicial PowerCarlson, 2/12/15Identity of CasePowell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, (1969)Page 139 of the casebookSummary of Facts/Procedural HistoryPowell was a popular, African-american, liberal representative for the state of New York. Although he was incredibly active his first few years, over time he spent less time at congress and more time in the Bahamas, and misused his committees funds (including paying for a job for his wife that did not exist). Yet he was still incredibly popular in his district; after winning the 1966 elections, his fellow representatives voted to exclude him from his seat. Powell sues, and it gets appealed to the Supreme Court where they decide that it is a political question and therefore not justiciable. Statement of the IssueWhether Congress’s authorization to “judge the qualifications of their members” is a political question and therefore not justiciable. HoldingThis is not a political question. Goes on to hear the case on the merits, final outcome not relevant to this class, really. ReasoningThe speaker of the house (McCormick) makes two main arguments in favor of the house’s position: 1. Textually demonstrable commitment to congressArt 1 sec 5: Each house shall be the judge of the elections, qualifications, and returns of its members. This seems pretty clear, but we have to decide what the “qualifications” are. The constitution lists only 3 qualifications: age, citizenship, and residency. The constitution also lists a number of disqualifying factors: treason, for one. Is this really a commitment just to congress? Basically the court concludes that congress can decide the qualifying factors exclusively, but that there is not a clear textually demonstrable commitment giving congress the power to judge disqualifying factors. Treason, for example. If Congress could try its members for treason, would they honestly get a fair trial? Doubt it. 2. Prior practice of doing the sameThis argument is not convincing on any level. Just because a branch has a history of doing something a certain way does not mean that it is right to do so. Regardless, Congress does not have the final say on what the constitution allows them to do – there are checks and balances for a reason.
View Full Document
Unlocking...