    [Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the Rules of the House of Representatives, 108th Congress]
    [108th Congress]
    [House Document 107-284]
    [The United States Constitution]
    [Pages 1-121]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

    [[Page 1]]

    ========================================================================

    ========================================================================

    [[Page 3]]

                                  CONSTITUTION

                                   __________

    Sec. 1. The preamble.

      We the People  of the United States, in
    Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic
    Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general
    Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our
    Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United
    States of America.

    [[Page 4]]

    Sec. 2. Formation of the
    Constitution.

      The First Continental  Congress met in Philadelphia in September of 1774 and
    adopted the Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress,
    embodying rights and principles later to be incorporated into the
    Constitution of the United States. The Second Continental Congress
    adopted in November of 1777 the Articles of Confederation, which the
    States approved in July, 1778. Upon recommendation of the Continental
    Congress, a convention of State representatives met in May, 1787 to
    revise the Articles of Confederation and reported to the Continental
    Congress in September a new Constitution, which the Congress submitted
    to the States for ratification. Nine States, as required by the
    Constitution for its establishment, had ratified by June 21, 1788, and
    eleven States had ratified by July 26, 1788. The Continental Congress
    adopted a resolution on September 13, 1788, putting the new Constitution
    into effect; the First Congress of the United States convened on March
    4, 1789, and George Washington was inaugurated as the first President on
    April 30, 1789.

                                   ARTICLE I.

    Sec. 3. Legislative powers vested in
    Congress.

      Section 1. All  legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a
    Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House
    of Representatives.

    <>   Section 2. \1\The House of Representatives shall be composed
    of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States,
    * * *.

    Sec. 4. Power to
    investigate.

      The power to legislate includes the power to conduct inquiries and
    investigations. See Kilbourn v.   Thompson, 103 U.S. 168 (1881); McGrain v. Daugherty, 273
    U.S. 135 (1927); Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178 (1957);
    Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109 (1959). For the power of the
    House to punish for contempt in the course of investigations, see
    Sec. 293, infra.

      This clause requires election by the people and State authority may
    not determine a tie by lot (I, 775).

      The phrase ``by the people of the several States'' means that as
    nearly as practicable one person's vote in a congressional election is
    to be worth as much as another's. Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1
    (1964); Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 385 U.S. 450 (1967). 2 U.S.C. 2a
    mandates apportionment of Representatives based upon population, and 2
    U.S.C. 2c requires the establishment by the States of single-Member
    congressional districts. For elections generally, see Deschler, ch. 8.

    [[Page 5]]

    resolution fixing the daily hour of meeting at noon or
    some other hour is agreed to at the beginning of each session.

    Sec. 6. Term of a Congress.

      The term of a  Congress, before
    the ratification of the 20th amendment to the Constitution, began on the
    4th of March of the odd numbered years and extended through two years.
    This resulted from the action of the Continental Congress on September
    13, 1788, in declaring, on authority conferred by the Federal
    Convention, ``the first Wednesday in March next'' to be ``the time for
    commencing proceedings under the said Constitution.'' This date was the
    4th of March, 1789. Soon after the first Congress assembled a joint
    committee determined that the terms of Representatives and Senators of
    the first class commenced on that day, and must necessarily terminate
    with the 3d of March, 1791 (I, 3). Under the 20th amendment to the
    Constitution the terms of Representatives and Senators begin on the 3d
    of January of the odd-numbered years, regardless of when Congress
    actually convenes. By a practice having the force of common law, the
    House meets at noon when no other hour is fixed
    (I, 4, 210). In the later practice a

      Prior to adoption of the 20th amendment, the legislative day of March
    3 extended to noon on March 4 (V, 6694-6697) and, unless
    earlier adjourned, the Speaker could at that time declare the House
    adjourned sine die, without motion or vote, even to the point of
    suspending a roll call then in progress (V, 6715-6718).

    <> * * * and
    the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for
    Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

      The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1140) provides
    that unless Congress otherwise specifies the two Houses shall adjourn
    sine die not later than the last day in July. This requirement is not
    applicable, under the terms of that Act, where a state of war exists
    pursuant to a congressional declaration or where, in an odd-numbered
    (nonelection) year, the Congress has agreed to adjourn for the month
    preceding Labor Day. For more on this provision, see Sec. 1105, infra.

      The House, in the decision of an election case, has rejected votes
    cast by persons not naturalized citizens of the United States, although
    they were entitled to vote under the statutes of a State (I, 811); but
    where an act of Congress had provided that a certain class of persons
    should be deprived of citizenship, a question arose over the proposed
    rejection of their votes in a State wherein citizenship in the United
    States was not a qualification of the elector (I, 451). In an
    exceptional case the House rejected votes cast by persons lately in
    armed resistance to the Government, although by the law of the State
    they were qualified voters (I, 448); but later, the House declined to
    find persons disqualified as voters because they had formerly borne arms
    against the Government (II, 879).

    Sec. 8. Decisions of the Court.

      The power  of the States to
    set qualifications for electors is not unlimited, being subject to the
    15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments, and to the equal protection
    clause of the United States Constitution. Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S.
    89 (1965); Kramer v. Union Free School District, 395 U.S. 621 (1969).

    <>   \2\No
    Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained
    to the Age of twenty five Years, * * *.

    [[Page 6]]

      Congress has some power in setting qualifications for electors, as in
    protecting the right to vote and lowering the minimum age for electors
    in congressional elections. Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 (1966);
    Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970).

    <> * * *
    and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, * * *.

      A Member-elect not being of the required age, was not enrolled by the
    Clerk and he did not take the oath until he had reached the required age
    (I, 418).

    <> * * *
    and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which
    he shall be chosen.

      Henry Ellenbogen, Pa., had not been a citizen for seven years when
    elected to the 73d Congress, nor when the term commenced on March 4,
    1933. He was sworn at the beginning of the second session on January 3,
    1934, when a citizen for seven and one-half years (see H. Rept. 1431 and
    H. Res. 370, 73d Cong.). A native of South Carolina who had been abroad
    during the Revolution and on his return had not resided in the country
    seven years, was held to be qualified as a citizen (I, 420). A woman who
    forfeited her citizenship through marriage to a foreign subject and
    later resumed it through naturalization less than seven years prior to
    her election, was held to fulfill the constitutional requirement as to
    citizenship and entitled to a seat in the House (VI, 184). A Member who
    had long been a resident of the country, but who could not produce
    either the record of the court nor his final naturalization papers, was
    nevertheless retained in his seat by the House (I, 424).

    [[Page 7]]

    bia for years as a newspaper correspondent and maintenance there of
    church membership were not considered to outweigh payment of poll and
    income taxes, ownership of real estate, and a record for consistent
    voting in the district from which elected (VI, 55), and in the same case
    excuse from jury duty in the District of Columbia on a plea of
    citizenship in the State from which elected and exercise of incidental
    rights of such citizenship, were accepted as evidence of inhabitancy
    (VI, 55).
      The meaning of the word ``inhabitant'' and its relation to citizenship
    has been discussed (I, 366, 434; VI, 174), and the House has held that a
    mere sojourner in a State was not qualified as an inhabitant (I, 369),
    but a contestant was found to be an actual inhabitant of the State
    although for sufficient reason his family resided in another State (II,
    1091). Residence abroad in the service of the Government does not
    destroy inhabitancy as understood under the Constitution (I, 433). One
    holding an office and residing with his family for a series of years in
    the District of Columbia exclusively was held disqualified to sit as a
    Member from the State of his citizenship (I, 434); and one who had his
    business and a residence in the District of Columbia and had no business
    or residence in Virginia was held ineligible to a seat from that State
    (I, 436). One who had a home in the District of Columbia, and had
    inhabited another home in Maryland a brief period before his election,
    but had never been a citizen of any other State, was held to be
    qualified (I, 432). Also a Member who had resided a portion of a year in
    the District of Columbia, but who had a home in the State of his
    citizenship and was actually living there at the time of the election,
    was held to be qualified (I, 435). In the Updike v. Ludlow case, 71st
    Congress, it was decided that residence in the District of Colum

    Sec. 12. Qualifications other than those
    specified by the Constitution.

      Whether Congress  may by law establish qualifications
    other than those prescribed by the Constitution has been the subject of
    much discussion (I, 449, 451, 457, 458, 478); but in a case wherein a
    statute declared a Senator convicted of a certain offense ``forever
    thereafter incapable of holding any office of honor, trust, or profit
    under the Government of the United States,'' the Supreme Court expressed
    the opinion that the final judgment of conviction did not operate, ipso
    facto, to vacate the seat or compel the Senate to expel or regard the
    Senator as expelled by force alone of the judgment (II, 1282). Whether
    the House or Senate alone may set up qualifications other than those of
    the Constitution has also been a subject often discussed (I, 414, 415,
    443, 457, 458, 469, 481, 484). The Senate has always declined to act on
    the supposition that it had such a power (I, 443, 483), and during the
    stress of civil war the House of Representatives declined to exercise
    the power, even under circumstances of great provocation (I, 449, 465).
    But later, in one instance, the House excluded a Member-elect on the
    principal argument that it might itself prescribe a qualification not
    specified in the Constitution (I, 477). The matter was extensively
    debated in the 90th Congress in connection with the consideration of
    resolutions relating to the seating of Representative-elect Adam C.
    Powell of New York (H. Res. 1, Jan. 10, 1967, p. 14; H. Res. 278, Mar.
    1, 1967, p. 4997).

      The exclusion of Mr. Powell was the subject of litigation reaching the
    Supreme Court of the United States. In Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486
    (1969), the Court found that the power of Congress to judge the
    qualifications of its Members was limited to an examination of the
    express qualifications stated in the Constitution.

      It has been decided by the House and Senate that no State may add to
    the qualifications prescribed by the Constitution (I, 414-416, 632); and
    the Supreme Court so ruled in U.S. Term Limits, Inc., v. Thorton, 63
    U.S.L.W. 4413 (1995). There, the Court held that States may not
    ``change, add to, or diminish'' constitutional qualifications of
    Members, striking down a State statute prohibiting three-term incumbents
    from appearing on the general election ballot. For qualifications
    generally, see Deschler, ch. 7, Sec. Sec. 9-14.

    [[Page 8]]

      For expulsion of seated Members, which requires a two-thirds vote
    rather than a majority vote, see article I, section 5, clause 2
    (Sec. 62, infra).

    Sec. 13. Minority candidate not seated when
    returned Member is disqualified.

      Both Houses of  Congress have decided, when a Member-
    elect is found to be disqualified, that the person receiving the next
    highest number of votes is not entitled to the seat (I, 323, 326, 450,
    463, 469; VI, 58, 59), even in a case wherein seasonable notice of the
    disqualification was given to the electors (I, 460). In the event of the
    death of a Member-elect, the candidate receiving the next highest number
    of votes is not entitled to the seat (VI, 152).

    Sec. 14. The old provision for
    apportionment of Representatives and direct taxes.

      \3\[Representatives and direct  Taxes shall be
    apportioned among the several States which may be included within this
    Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined
    by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to
    Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three
    fifths of all other Persons.] * * *

    * * * The actual <> Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the
    first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every
    subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law
    direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every
    thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative;
    and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire
    shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode- Island and
    Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey
    four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland

    [[Page 9]]

    six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia
    three.

      The part of this clause relating to the mode of apportionment of
    Representatives was changed after the Civil War by section 2 of the 14th
    amendment and, as to taxes on incomes without
    apportionment, by the 16th amendment.

      The census has been taken decennially since 1790, and, with the
    exception of 1920, was followed each time by reapportionment. In the
    First Congress the House had 65 Members; increased after each census,
    except that of 1840, until 435 was reached in 1913 (VI, 39, 40). The Act
    of June 18, 1929 (46 Stat. 26), as amended by the Act of November 15,
    1941 (55 Stat. 761), provides for reapportionment of the existing number
    (435) among the States following each new census (VI, 41-43; see 2
    U.S.C. 2a). Membership was temporarily increased to 436, then to 437,
    upon admission of Alaska (72 Stat. 345) and Hawaii (73 Stat. 8), but
    returned to 435 on January 3, 1963, the effective date of the
    reapportionment under the 18th Decennial census.

      Under the later but not the earlier practice, bills relating to the
    census and apportionment are not privileged for consideration (I, 305-
    308; VI, 48, VII, 889; Apr. 8, 1926, p. 7147).

    Sec. 16. Decisions of the Court.

      Decisions  of the Supreme
    Court of the United States: Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 Howard, 393;
    Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall., 533; Scholey v. Rew, 23 Wall., 331; De
    Treville v. Smalls, 98 U.S. 517; Gibbons v. District of Columbia, 116
    U.S. 404; Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co. (Income Tax case), 157
    U.S. 429; Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (Rehearing), 158 U.S.
    601; Thomas v. United States, 192 U.S. 363; Flint v. Stone Tracy Co.,
    220 U.S. 107; Corporation Tax cases, 220 U.S. 107; Eisner v. Macomber,
    252 U.S. 189; New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U.S. 345;
    Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (1992); Utah v. Evans,
    536 U.S. 452 (2002).

    Sec. 17. Writs for elections to vacancies in
    representation.

      \4\When vacancies  happen in the Representation from any State, the
    Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such
    Vacancies.

      Vacancies are caused by death, resignation, declination, withdrawal,
    or by action of the House in declaring a vacancy as existing or causing
    one by expulsion.

    [[Page 10]]

    (I, 323), and in such a case the candidate having the next highest
    number of votes may not receive the credentials (I, 323; VI 152). A
    Member whose seat was contested dying, the House did not admit a
    claimant with credentials until contestant's claim was settled (I, 326);
    where a contestant died after a report in his favor, the House unseated
    the returned Member and declared the seat vacant (II, 965), and in a
    later case the contestant having died, the committee did not recommend
    to the House a resolution it had agreed to declaring he had not been
    elected (VI, 112). In the 93d Congress, when two Members-elect were
    passengers on a missing aircraft and were presumed dead, the Speaker
    laid before the House documentary evidence of the presumptive death of
    one Member-elect and the declaration of a vacancy by the Governor, as
    well as evidence that the status of the other Member-elect had not been
    officially determined by State authority. The House then adopted a
    privileged resolution declaring vacant the seat of the latter Member-
    elect to enable the Governor of that State to call a special election
    (Jan. 3, 1973, p. 15). For further discussion, see Sec. 23, infra.

    Sec. 18. Vacancy from death.

      It was long the  practice to
    notify the executive of the State when a vacancy was caused by the death
    of a Member during a session (II, 1198-1202); but since improvements in
    transportation have made it possible for deceased Members to be buried
    at their homes it has been the practice for State authorities to take
    cognizance of the vacancies without notice. When a Member dies while not
    in attendance on the House or during a recess the House is sufficiently
    informed of the vacancy by the credentials of his successor, when they
    set forth the fact of the death (I, 568). The death of a Member-elect
    creates a vacancy, although no certificate may have been awarded

    Sec. 19. Vacancy from resignation.

      In recent practice  the
    Member frequently informs the House by letter that his resignation has
    been sent to the State executive (II, 1167-1176) and this is
    satisfactory evidence of the resignation (I, 567).
    However,/ Members have resigned by letter to the House alone, it
    being presumed that the Member would also notify his Governor (VI,
    226). Where a Member resigned by letter to the House the
    Speaker was authorized to notify the Governor (Nov. 27, 1944, p. 8450;
    July 12, 1957, p. 11536; Sept. 1, 1976, p. 28887). Where a Member does
    not inform the House, the State executive may do so (II,
    1193, 1194; VI, 232). The House has, on occasion,
    learned of a Member's resignation by means of the credentials of
    his successor (II, 1195, 1356). Where the fact of a Member's resignation
    has not appeared either from the credentials of his successor or
    otherwise, the Clerk has been ordered to make inquiry (II, 1209) or the
    House has ascertained the vacancy from information given by other
    Members (II, 1208).

    [[Page 11]]

    a special election before the effective date of the resignation (Feb.
    27, 2002, p. ----).
      It has been established that a Member or Senator may resign,
    appointing a future date for his resignation to take effect, and until
    the arrival of the date may participate in the proceedings (II, 1220-
    1225, 1228, 1229; VI, 227, 228; Dec. 15, 1997, p. ----; June 5,
    2001, p. ----; Nov. 27, 2001, p. ----; Jan. 27, 2003, p. ----). It has
    been possible even for a Member to resign a seat in the House
    ``effective on the election of a successor'' (Deschler, ch. 8,
    Sec. 9.3). However, the State concerned must be willing to treat the
    prospective resignation as a Constitutional predicate for the issuance
    of a writ of election to fill a vacancy (see, e.g., Jan. 8, 1952, p. 14,
    indicating that the Executive of the State declined to take cognizance
    of a prospective resignation; and July 9, 1991, p. ----, Nov. 12, 1991,
    p. ----, and Jan. 27, 2003, p. ----, indicating that the Executive of
    the State took cognizance of a prospective resignation). When the
    Governor of Oklahoma received a prospective resignation from one of its
    Members, the State provided by statute (enrolled Senate Bill Number 7X)
    for the holding of

      For the State to take cognizance of a prospective resignation, it must
    have assurances that there is no possibility of withdrawal (or
    modification). In one case a Member who had resigned was not permitted
    by the House to withdraw the resignation (II, 1213). However, the House
    has allowed withdrawal in the case of defective resignation; that is,
    where the Member had not actually transmitted the letter of resignation
    (VI, 229), or had transmitted it to an improper state official (Oct. 9,
    1997, p.----). A Member may include in a letter of prospective
    resignation a statement of intention that the resignation be
    ``irrevocable'' in order to allay any concern about the prospect of
    withdrawal (June 5, 2001, p. ----; Jan. 27, 2003, p. ----).

      Acceptance of the resignation of a Member of the House is
    unnecessary (VI, 65, 226), and the refusal of a Governor to accept a
    resignation cannot operate to continue membership in the House (VI, 65).
    Only in a single exceptional case has the House taken action in the
    direction of accepting a resignation (II, 1214). Sometimes Members who
    have resigned have been reelected to the same House and taken seats (II,
    1210, 1212, 1256; Jan. 28, 1965 and June 16, 1965, pp. 1452 and 13774;
    Jan. 6, 1983 and Feb. 22, 1983, pp. 114 and 2575). A Member who has not
    taken his seat resigned (II, 1231).

      A letter of resignation is presented as privileged (II, 1167-
    1176); but a resolution to permit a Member to withdraw his resignation
    was not so treated (II, 1213). The Speaker having been elected Vice
    President and a Representative of the succeeding Congress at the same
    election, transmitted to the Governor of his State his resignation as a
    Member-elect (VI, 230, 453). A Member of the House having been nominated
    and confirmed as Vice President pursuant to the 25th amendment,
    submitted a letter of resignation as a Representative to the Governor of
    his State, and a copy of his letter of resignation was laid before the
    House by the Speaker following the completion of a joint meeting for his
    swearing-in as Vice President (Dec. 6, 1973, p. 39927). A sitting Member
    having been confirmed as Secretary of Defense, his letter of resignation
    was laid before the House prior to his taking the oath of that office
    (Mar. 20, 1989, p. 4976).

    [[Page 12]]

    Governor did not attempt to call a special election until after the term
    began on January 3, 1999 (Jan. 6, 1999, p.----).

    Sec. 20. Vacancy from declination.

      A Member who  has been
    elected to a seat may decline to accept it, and in such a case the House
    informed the executive of the State of the vacancy (II, 1234). The House
    has decided an election contest against a returned Member who had not
    appeared to claim the seat (I, 638). In one instance a Member-elect who
    had been convicted in the courts did not appear during the term (IV,
    4484, footnote). On November 7, 1998, less than a week after his
    re-election as Representative from the 6th district of Georgia, Speaker
    Gingrich announced that he would not be a candidate for Speaker in the
    106th Congress and that he would resign his seat as a Member of the
    106th Congress. Although the letter of ``withdrawal'' was tendered on
    November 22, the

    Sec. 21. Vacancy by withdrawal.

      At the time  of the secession
    of several States, Members of the House from those States
    withdrew (II, 1218). In the Senate, in cases of such withdrawals, the
    Secretary was directed to omit the names of the Senators from the roll
    (II, 1219), and the act of withdrawal was held to create a vacancy which
    the legislature might recognize (I, 383).

    Sec. 22. Vacancy by action of the House.

      Where the House,  by
    its action in a question of election or otherwise, creates a vacancy,
    the Speaker is directed to notify the Executive of the State (I, 502,
    709, 824; II, 1203-1205; Mar. 1, 1967, p. 5038; Jan. 3, 1973, p. 15;
    Feb. 24, 1981, pp. 2916-18). A resolution as to such notification is
    presented as a question of privilege (III, 2589), as is a resolution
    declaring a vacancy where the Member-elect was unable to take the oath
    of office or to resign because of an incapacitating illness (Feb. 24,
    1981, pp. 2916-18).

    Sec. 23. Questions as to the existence of a
    vacancy.

      The House declines  to give prima facie effect to credentials, even though they
    be regular in form, until it has ascertained whether or not the seat is
    vacant (I, 322, 518, 565, 569), and a person returned as elected at a
    second election was unseated on ascertainment that another person had
    actually been chosen at the first election (I, 646). Where a Member was
    reelected to the House, although at the time of the election he had been
    unaccounted for for several weeks following the disappearance of the
    plane on which he was a passenger, the Governor of the State from which
    he was elected transmitted his certificate to the House in the regular
    fashion. When the Member-elect was still missing at the time the new
    Congress convened, and circumstances were such that other passengers on
    the missing plane had been presumed dead following judicial inquiries in
    the State where the plane was lost, the House declared the seat vacant
    (H. Res. 1, 93d Cong., Jan. 3, 1973, p. 15). In the 108th
    Congress the House codified in clause 5 of rule XX its practice of
    accounting for vacancies (sec. 2(l), H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. ----).

    [[Page 13]]

    the 104th Congress. In that case the House authorized the Speaker to
    administer the oath to the Member-elect and referred the question of his
    final right to the seat in the 103d Congress to the Committee on House
    Administration (Nov. 29, 1994, pp. 29585, 29586). For a
    discussion of a State election to fill a prospective vacancy of the
    House, see Sec. 19.
    <>   A
    Member elected to fill a vacancy serves no longer time than the
    remainder of the term of the Member whose place he fills (I, 3). For the
    compensation and allowances of such Members, see Sec. 87, infra.

    <>
    \5\The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other
    Officers; * * *

    Sec. 24. Functions of the
    State executive in filling vacancies.

      The term ``vacancy''  as occurring in this
    paragraph of the Constitution has been examined in relation to the
    functions of the State executive (I, 312, 518). A Federal law empowers
    the States and Territories to provide by law the times of elections to
    fill vacancies (I, 516; 2 U.S.C. 8); but an election called by a
    governor in pursuance of constitutional authority was held valid
    although no State law prescribed time, place, or manner of
    such election (I, 517). Where two candidates had an equal number of
    votes, the governor did not issue credentials to either, but ordered a
    new election after they had waived their respective claims (I, 555). A
    candidate elected for the 104th Congress was appointed by the Governor
    to fill a vacancy for the remainder of the 103d Congress pursuant to a
    State law requiring the Governor to appoint the candidate who won the
    election to

      The officers of the House are the Speaker, who has always been one of
    its Members and whose term as Speaker must expire with his term as a
    Member; and the Clerk, Sergeant-at-Arms, Chief Administrative Officer,
    and Chaplain (I, 187), no one of whom has ever been chosen from the
    sitting membership of the House and who continue in office until their
    successors are chosen and qualified (I, 187). In one case the officers
    continued through the entire Congress succeeding that in which they were
    elected (I, 244, 263). Former officers include Doorkeeper (abolished by
    the 104th Congress, see Sec. 663a, infra) and Postmaster (abolished
    during the 102d Congress, see Sec. 668, infra). The House formerly
    provided by special rule that the Clerk should continue in office until
    another should be chosen (I, 187, 188, 235, 244). Currently, certain
    statutes impose on the officers duties which contemplate their
    continuance (I, 14, 15; 2 U.S.C. 75a-1, 83).

    Sec. 27. Election of a Speaker.

      The Speaker, who  was at
    first elected by ballot, has been chosen viva voce by surname in
    response to a call of the roll since 1839 (I, 187). The Speaker is
    elected by a majority of Members-elect voting by surname, a quorum being
    present (I, 216; VI, 24; Jan. 7, 1997, p. 117). The Clerk
    appoints tellers for this election (I, 217). Ultimately, the House, and
    not the Clerk, decides by what method it shall elect the Speaker (I,
    210). On two occasions, by special rules, Speakers were chosen by a
    plurality of votes; but in each case the House by majority vote adopted
    a resolution declaring the result (I, 221, 222). The House has declined
    to choose a Speaker by lot (I, 221).

    [[Page 14]]

    24). The contest over the election of a Speaker in 1923 was resolved
    after a procedure for the adoption of rules for the 68th Congress had
    been presented (VI, 24). In 1860 the voting for Speaker proceeded
    slowly, being interspersed with debate (I, 223), and in one instance the
    House asked candidates for Speaker to state their views before
    proceeding to election (I, 218).
      The motion to proceed to the election of a Speaker is privileged (I,
    212, 214; VIII, 3883), and debatable unless the previous question is
    ordered (I, 213). Relying on the Act of June 1, 1789 (2 U.S.C. 25), the
    Clerk recognized for nominations for Speaker as being of higher
    constitutional privilege than a resolution to postpone the election of a
    Speaker and instead provide for the election of a Speaker pro tempore
    pending the disposition of certain ethics charges against the nominee of
    the majority party (Jan. 7, 1997, p. 115). On several
    occasions the choice of a Speaker has been delayed for several weeks by
    contests (I, 222; V, 5356, 6647, 6649; VI,

    Sec. 28. Vacancies in the Office
    of Speaker.

      A proposition  to elect a Speaker is in order at any time a vacancy
    exists and presents a question of the highest privilege (VIII, 3383).
    Upon a vacancy in the Office of Speaker, the House elects
    a new Speaker either viva voce following nominations (in the case where
    a Speaker has died between sessions of Congress or resigned) or by
    resolution (in the case where a Speaker has died during a session of
    Congress). For example, in the case where the Speaker had died between
    sessions of Congress, the Clerk at the next session called the House to
    order, ascertained the presence of a quorum, and then the House
    proceeded to elect a successor viva voce following nominations (I, 234;
    Jan. 10, 1962, p. 5). In a case where the Speaker died during a session
    of Congress, but not while the House was sitting, the Clerk on the
    following day called the House to order and the Speaker's successor was
    elected by resolution (June 4, 1936, p. 9016; Sept. 16, 1940, p. 12231).
    In a case where the Speaker resigned ``on the election of my successor''
    (May 31, 1989, p. 10440), he entertained nominations for Speaker and,
    following the roll call, declared the winner of the election ``duly
    elected Speaker'' (June 6, 1989, p. 10801). In one instance a Speaker
    resigned on the last day of the Congress, and the House unanimously
    adopted a motion to elect a successor for the day (I, 225).

    [[Page 15]]

    (sec. 2(a), H. Res. 5, Jan. 7, 2003, p. ----). The Speaker delivered to
    the Clerk the first such letter on February 10, 2003 (Mar. 13, 2003, p.
    ----).
    <>   The effect of a law to regulate the action of the House in
    choosing its own officers has been discussed (IV, 3819), and such a law
    has been considered of doubtful validity (V, 6765, 6766) in theory and
    practice (I, 241, 242). The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2
    U.S.C. 75a-1) authorizes the Speaker to fill temporary vacancies in the
    offices of Clerk, Sergeant-at-Arms, Chief Administrative Officer, and
    Chaplain. For a history of the Speaker's exercise of such authority, see
    Sec. 640, infra;  and, for further information on the elections of
    officers, see Deschler, ch. 6.
      Form of resolution offered on death of a Speaker (Sept. 16, 1940, p.
    12232; Jan. 10, 1962, p. 9) and of a former Speaker (VIII, 3564; Mar. 7,
    1968, p. 5742; H. Res. 328, Jan. 25, 1994, p. 89; H. Res.
    418, Feb. 8, 2000, p. ----). A resolution declaring vacant the
    Office of Speaker is presented as a matter of high
    constitutional privilege (VI, 35). Speakers have resigned by rising in
    their place and addressing the House (I, 231, 233), by calling a Member
    to the Chair and tendering the resignation verbally from the floor (I,
    225), by tendering the resignation during recognition under a question
    of personal privilege (May 31, 1989, p. 10440), or by sending a letter
    which the Clerk reads to the House at the beginning of a new session (I,
    232). When the Speaker resigns no action of the House excusing him from
    service is taken (I, 232). Instance wherein the Speaker, following a
    vote upon an essential question indicating a change in the party control
    of the House, announced that under the circumstances it was incumbent
    upon the Speaker to resign or to recognize for a motion declaring vacant
    the Office of Speaker (VI, 35). In the 108th
    Congress the House adopted clause 8(b)(3) of rule I, under which the
    Speaker is required to deliver to the Clerk a list of Members in the
    order in which each shall act as Speaker pro tempore in the case of a
    vacancy in the Office of Speaker

    <> * * * and
    [the House of Representatives] shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

    Sec. 30. Election of Clerk in
    relation to business.

      The Office of  Clerk becoming vacant, it was held that the
    House would not be organized for business until a Clerk should be
    elected (I, 237); but in another instance some business intervened
    before a Clerk was elected (I, 239). At the time of organization, while
    the Clerk of the preceding House was yet officiating, and after the
    Speaker had been elected, the House proceeded to legislation and other
    business before electing a Clerk (I, 242, 244). But in one case it was
    held that the Act of June 1, 1789 (2 U.S.C. 25) bound the House to elect
    the Clerk before proceeding to business (I, 241).

      In 1868 the Senate ceased in its rules to describe the House, acting
    in an impeachment, as the ``grand inquest of the nation'' (III, 2126).
    See also art. II, sec. 4 (Sec. 173, infra); Deschler, ch. 14.

      A Federal court having subpoenaed certain evidence gathered by a
    committee of the House in an impeachment inquiry, the House adopted a
    resolution granting such limited access to the evidence as would not
    infringe upon its sole power of impeachment (Aug. 22, 1974, p. 30047).

      Until the law expired on June 30, 1999, an independent counsel was
    required to advise the House of any substantial and credible information
    that may constitute grounds for impeachment of an officer under his
    investigation (28 U.S.C. 595(c)). For a description of impeachment
    proceedings prompted by a communication from an independent counsel, see
    Sec. 176, infra.

    [[Page 16]]

    Sec. 32. Numbers, terms, and votes
    of Senators.

      Section 3. \1\[The Senate  of the United States shall be composed of two Senators
    from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and
    each Senator shall have one Vote.]

      This provision has now been changed by the 17th amendment to the
    Constitution.

    Sec. 33. Division of the Senate into
    classes.

      \2\Immediately  after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first
    Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes.
    The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the
    Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of
    the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of
    the <> sixth Year,
    so that one-third may be chosen every second Year; [and if Vacancies
    happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the
    Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary
    Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then
    fill such Vacancies.]

      That part of the above paragraph in brackets was changed by the 17th
    amendment.

    Sec. 35. Qualifications of Senators.

      \3\No Person  shall be a
    Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been
    nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when
    elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

    [[Page 17]]

    of making his home in the State, was admitted by the Senate (I, 438). A
    Senator who at the time of his election was actually residing in the
    District of Columbia as an officeholder, but who voted in his old home
    and had no intent of making the District his domicile, was held to be
    qualified (I, 439).

      In 1794 the Senate decided that Albert Gallatin was disqualified, not
    having been a citizen nine years although he had served in the war of
    Independence and was a resident of the country when the Constitution was
    formed (I, 428); and in 1849 that James Shields was disqualified, not
    having been a citizen for the required time (I, 429). But in 1870 the
    Senate declined to examine as to H. R. Revels, a citizen under the
    recently adopted 14th amendment (I, 430). As to inhabitancy the Senate
    seated one who, being a citizen of the United States, had been an
    inhabitant of the State from which he was appointed for less than a year
    (I, 437). Also one who, while stationed in a State as an army officer
    had declared his intention

    Sec. 36. The Vice President and his
    vote.

      \4\The Vice  President of the United States shall be President of the Senate,
    but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

    <>   \5\The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also
    a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when
    he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.

      The right of the Vice President to vote has been construed to extend
    to questions relating to the organization of the Senate (V, 5975), as
    the election of officers of the Senate (V, 5972-5974), or a decision on
    the title of a claimant to a seat (V, 5976, 5977). The Senate has
    declined to make a rule relating to the vote of the Vice President (V,
    5974).

    -  \6\The Senate <> shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.
    When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation.
    When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice
    shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence
    of two thirds of the Members present.

      In the 107th Congress the Senate elected two Presidents of the Senate
    pro tempore for different periods when the majority of the Senate
    shifted after inauguration of the Vice President (S. Res. 3, Jan. 3,
    2001, p. ----).

    [[Page 18]]

    506 U.S. 224 (1993). For a discussion of Senate impeachment procedures,
    see Sec. Sec. 608-20, infra.

      For the exclusive power of the Senate to try impeachments under the
    United States Constitution, see Ritter v. United States, 84 Ct. Cls. 293
    (1936), cert. denied, 300 U.S. 668 (1937). See also Mississippi v.
    Johnson, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 475 (1867) (dictum). For the
    nonjusticiability of a claim that Senate Rule XI violates the
    impeachment trial clause by delegating to a committee of 12 Senators the
    responsibility to receive evidence, hear testimony, and report to the
    Senate thereon, see Nixon v. United States,

    Sec. 41. Judgment in cases of
    impeachment.

      \7\Judgment in  Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to
    removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office
    of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party
    convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial,
    Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

      There has been discussion as to whether or not the Constitution
    requires both removal and disqualification on conviction (III, 2397);
    but in the case of Pickering, the Senate decreed only removal (III,
    2341). In the case of Humphreys, judgment of both removal and
    disqualification was pronounced (III, 2397). In the Ritter case, it was
    first held that upon conviction of the respondent, judgment of removal
    required no vote, following automatically from conviction under article
    II, section 4 (Apr. 17, 1936, p. 5607). In the 99th Congress, having
    tried to conviction the first impeachment case against a Federal
    district judge since 1936, the Senate ordered his removal from office
    (Oct. 9, 1986, p. 29870). In the 101st Congress, two other Federal
    district judges were removed from office following their convictions in
    the Senate (Oct. 20, 1989, p. 25335; Nov. 3, 1989, p. 27101). For a
    further discussion of judgments in cases of impeachment, see Sec. 619,
    infra.

    Sec. 42. Times, places, and manner of
    elections of Representatives and Senators.

      Section 4. \1\The Times,  Places and Manner of
    holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed
    in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any
    time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the places of
    chusing Senators.

    [[Page 19]]

    an election, a question arose (II, 975). A question has arisen as to
    whether or not a State, in the absence of action by Congress, might make
    the time of election of Congressmen contingent on the time of the State
    election (I, 522). This paragraph gives Congress the power to protect
    the right to vote in primaries where they are an integral part of the
    election process. United States v. Wurzbach, 280 U.S. 396 (1930); United
    States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941). Congress may legislate under
    this paragraph to protect the exercise of the franchise in congressional
    elections. Ex parte Siebolt, 100 U.S. 371 (1880); Ex parte Yarbrough,
    110 U.S. 651 (1884).
      The relative powers of the Congress and the States under this graph
    have been the subject of much discussion (I, 311, 313, 507, footnote);
    but Congress has in fact fixed by law the time of elections (I, 508; VI,
    66; 2 U.S.C. 7), and has controlled the manner to the extent of
    prescribing a ballot or voting machine (II, 961; VI, 150; 2 U.S.C. 9).
    When a State delegated to a municipality the power to regulate the
    manner of holding

    Sec. 43. Functions of a State legislature in
    fixing time, etc., of elections.

      The meaning of  the word ``legislature'' in this
    clause of the Constitution has been the subject of discussion (II, 856),
    as to whether or not it means a constitutional convention as well as a
    legislature in the commonly accepted meaning of the word (I, 524). The
    House has sworn in Members chosen at an election the time, etc., of
    which was fixed by the schedule of a constitution adopted on that
    election day (I, 519, 520, 522). But the House held that where a
    legislature has been in existence a constitutional convention might not
    exercise the power (I, 363, 367). It has been argued generally that the
    legislature derives the power herein discussed from the Federal and not
    the State Constitution (II, 856, 947), and therefore that the State
    constitution might not in this respect control the State legislature
    (II, 1133). The House has sustained this view by its action (I, 525).
    But where the State constitution fixed a date for an election and the
    legislature had not acted, although it had the opportunity, the House
    held the election valid (II, 846).

    [[Page 20]]

    Sec. 44. Decisions of the Court.

      Decisions  of the Supreme
    Court of the United States: Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371 (1880); Ex
    parte Clark, 100 U.S. 399 (1880); Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651
    (1884); In re Coy, 127 U.S. 731 (1888); Ohio v. Hildebrant, 241 U.S. 565
    (1916); United States v. Mosley, 238 U.S. 383 (1915); United States  v.
    Gradwell, 243 U.S. 476 (1917); Newberry v. United States, 256 U.S. 232
    (1921); Smiley v. Holme, 285 U.S. 355 (1932); United States v. Classic,
    313 U.S. 299 (1941); Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944); Roudebush
    v. Hartke, 405 U.S. 15 (1972); Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (1974);
    Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976); U.S. Term Limits, Inc., v. Thorton,
    514 U.S. 779 (1995); and Foster v. Love, 522 U.S. 67 (1997). In Public
    Law 91-285, Congress lowered the minimum age of voters in all Federal,
    State, and local elections from 21 to 18 years. In Oregon
    v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970), the Supreme Court upheld the power of
    Congress under article I, section 4 and under section 5 of the 14th
    amendment to the Constitution to fix the age of voters in Federal
    elections, but held that the tenth amendment to the Constitution
    reserved to the States the power to establish voter age qualifications
    in State and local elections. The 26th amendment to the Constitution
    extended the right of persons 18 years of age or older to vote in
    elections held under State authority.

    Sec. 45. Annual meeting of Congress.

      \2\[The Congress  shall
    assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the
    first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different
    Day.]

      This provision of the Constitution has been superseded by the 20th
    amendment.

      In the later but not the earlier practice (I, 5), prior to the 20th
    amendment, the fact that Congress had met once within the year did not
    make uncertain the constitutional mandate to meet on the first Monday of
    December (I, 6, 9-11). Early Congresses, convened either by proclamation
    or law on a day earlier than the constitutional day, remained in
    continuous session to a time beyond that day (I, 6, 9-11). But in the
    later view an existing session ends with the day appointed by the
    Constitution for the regular annual session (II, 1160); see Sec. 84,
    infra. Congress has frequently appointed by law a day for the meeting
    (I, 4, 5, 10-12, footnote; see also Sec. 243, infra).

    Sec. 46. House the judge of elections,
    returns, and qualifications.

      Section 5. \1\Each  House shall be the Judge of the
    Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, * * *.

      In judging the qualifications of its Members, the House may not add
    qualifications to those expressly stated in the United States
    Constitution. Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969). This phrase
    allows the House or Senate to deny the right to a seat without
    unlawfully depriving a State of its right to equal representation. Barry
    v. United States ex rel Cunningham, 279 U.S. 597 (1929). But a State may
    conduct a recount of votes without interfering with the authority of the
    House under this phrase. Roudebush v. Hartke, 405 U.S. 15 (1972). For
    discussion of the power of the House to judge elections, see Deschler,
    ch. 8 (elections) and ch. 9 (election contests); for discussion of the
    power of the House to judge qualifications, see Deschler, ch. 7.

      The House has the same authority to determine the right of a Delegate
    to his seat that it has in the case of a Member (I, 423). The House may
    not delegate the duty of judging its elections to another tribunal (I,
    608), and the courts of a State have nothing to do with it (II, 959).
    The House has once examined the relations of this power to the power to
    expel (I, 469).

    [[Page 21]]

    with State law does not prevent examination of the votes by the House
    and a reversal of the return (I, 637). The House has also held that it
    is not confined to the conclusions of returns made up in strict
    conformity to State law, but may examine the votes and correct the
    returns (I, 774); and the fact that a State law gives canvassers the
    right to reject votes for fraud and irregularities does not preclude the
    House from going behind the returns (II, 887). The highest court in one
    State (Colorado) has ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to pass upon a
    candidate's allegations of irregularities in a primary election and that
    the House had exclusive jurisdiction to decide such questions and to
    declare the rightful nominee (Sept. 23, 1970, p. 33320).

    Sec. 47. Power of judging as related to State
    laws as to returns.

      As nearly all  the laws governing the elections of
    Representatives in Congress are State laws, questions have often arisen
    as to the relation of this power of judging to those laws (I, 637). The
    House decided very early that the certificate of a State executive
    issued in strict accordance

    Sec. 48. Power of judging as related to
    State laws as to acts of the voter.

      When the question  concerns not the acts of returning
    officers, but the act of the voter in giving his vote, the House has
    found more difficulty in determining on the proper exercise of its
    constitutional power. While the House has always acted on the principle
    of giving expression to the intent of the voter (I, 575, 639, 641; II,
    1090), yet it has held that a mandatory State law, even though
    arbitrary, may cause the rejection of a ballot on which the intent of
    the voter is plain (II, 1009, 1056, 1077, 1078, 1091). See Deschler, ch.
    8, Sec. 8.11, for discussion of distinction between directory
    State laws governing the conduct of election officials as
    to ballots, and mandatory laws regulating the conduct of voters.

    Sec. 49. Power of House as related to
    constitutionality of State laws.

      Where the State  courts have upheld a State election
    law as constitutional the House does not ordinarily question the law
    (II, 856, 1071). But where there has been no such decision the House, in
    determining its election cases, has passed on the validity of State laws
    under State constitutions (II, 1011, 1134), and has acted on its
    decision that they were unconstitutional (II, 1075, 1126), but it is not
    the policy of the House to pass upon the validity of State election laws
    alleged to be in conflict with the State constitution (VI, 151).

    [[Page 22]]

    Sec. 50. Effect of interpretation of State
    election laws by State courts.

      The courts of  a State have nothing to do directly
    with judging the elections, qualifications, and returns of
    Representatives in Congress (II, 959), but where the highest State court
    has interpreted the State law the House has concluded that it should
    generally be governed by this interpretation (I, 645, 731; II, 1041,
    1048), but does not consider itself bound by such interpretations (VI,
    58). The House is not bound, however, by a decision on an analogous but
    not the identical question in issue (II, 909); and where the alleged
    fraud of election judges was in issue, the acquittal of those judges in
    the courts was held not to be an adjudication binding on the House (II,
    1019). For a recent illustration of a protracted election dispute
    lasting four months see House Report 99-58, culminating in
    House Resolution 146 of the 99th Congress (May 1, 1985, p. 9998).

    Sec. 51. Laws of Congress not binding on the
    House in its function of judging its elections.

      The statutes of  the United States
    provide specific methods for institution of a contest as to the title to
    a seat in the House (I, 678, 697-706) (2 U.S.C. 381); but the House
    regards this law as not of absolute binding force, but rather a
    wholesome rule not to be departed from except for cause (I, 597, 719,
    825, 833), and it sometimes by resolution modifies the procedure
    prescribed by the law (I, 449, 600).

    Sec. 51a. Decisions of the Court.

      Decisions  of the Supreme
    Court of the United States: In re Loney, 134 U.S. 317 (1890); Reed v.
    County Commissioners, 277 U.S. 376 (1928); Barry v. United States ex
    rel. Cunningham, 279 U.S. 597 (1929); Roudebush v. Hartke, 405 U.S. 15
    (1972).

    Sec. 52. The quorum.

       * * * and a  Majority of
    each [House] shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller
    Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the
    Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties
    as each House may provide.

    Sec. 53. Interpretation of the Constitution
    as to number constituting a quorum.

      Out of conditions  arising between 1861 and 1891 the
    rule was established that a majority of the Members chosen and living
    constituted the quorum required by the Constitution (IV, 2885-2888); but
    later examination has resulted in a decision confirming in the House of
    Representatives the construction established in the Senate that a quorum
    consists of a majority of Senators duly chosen and sworn (I, 630; IV,
    2891-2894). So the decision of the House now is that after the House is
    once organized the quorum consists of a majority of those Members
    chosen, sworn, and living whose membership has not been terminated by
    resignation or by the action of the House (IV, 2889, 2890; VI, 638).
    Under clause 5(c) of rule XX, upon the death, resignation,
    expulsion, disqualification, or removal of a Member, the Speaker
    announces any adjustment to the whole number of the House. Such an
    announcement is not subject to appeal (see Sec. 1024a, infra).

    [[Page 23]]

    144 U.S. 1 (1892)), established the principle that a
    quorum present made valid any action by the House, although an actual
    quorum might not vote (I, 216, footnote; IV, 2932).
    Thenceforth the point of order as to a quorum was required
    to be that no quorum was present and not that no quorum had voted (IV,
    2917). At the time of the establishment of this principle the Speaker
    revived the count by the Chair as a method of determining the presence
    of a quorum at a time when no record vote was ordered (IV, 2909). The
    Speaker has permitted his count of a quorum to be verified by tellers
    (IV, 2888), but has not conceded it as a
    right of the House to have tellers under the circumstances (IV, 2916;
    VI, 647-651; VIII, 2369, 2436), claiming that the Chair might determine
    the presence of a quorum in such manner as he should deem accurate and
    suitable (IV, 2932). The Chair counts all Members in sight, whether in
    the cloak rooms, or within the bar (IV, 2970; VIII, 3120). Later, as the
    complement to the new view of the quorum, the early theory that the
    presence of a quorum was as necessary during debate or other business as
    on a vote was revived (IV, 2935-2949). Also, a line of
    rulings made under the old theory was
    overruled; and it was established that the point of no
    quorum might be made after the House had declined to verify a division
    by tellers or the yeas and nays (IV, 2918-2926). For a discussion
    of the Ballin decision and the Chair's count to determine a quorum, see
    House Practice, ch. 43, Sec. 5.

    Sec. 54. The theory of the quorum present; and
    the count by the Speaker.

      For many years  a quorum was determined only
    by noting the number of Members voting (IV, 2896, 2897), with the result
    that Members by refusing to vote could often break a quorum and obstruct
    the public business (II, 1034; IV, 2895, footnote; V, 5744).
    However, in 1890 Speaker Reed directed the
    Clerk to enter on the Journal as part of the record of a yea-and-nay
    vote names of Members present but not voting, thereby establishing a
    quorum of record (IV, 2895). This decision, which was
    upheld by the Supreme Court (IV, 2904; United States v. Ballin,

    Sec. 55. Relations of the quorum to acts of the
    House.

      The absence of  a quorum having been disclosed, there must be a quorum of
    record before the House may proceed to business (IV, 2952, 2953; VI,
    624, 660, 662), and the point of no quorum may not be withdrawn even by
    unanimous consent after the absence of a quorum has been ascertained and
    announced by the Chair (IV, 2928-2931; VI, 657; Apr. 13, 1978, p. 10119;
    Sept. 25, 1984, p. 26778). But when an action has been completed, it is
    too late to make the point of order that a quorum was not present when
    it was done (IV, 2927; VI, 655). But where action requiring a quorum was
    taken in the ascertained absence of a quorum by ruling of a Speaker pro
    tempore, the Speaker on the next day ruled that the action was null and
    void (IV, 2964; see also VIII, 3161). But such absence of a quorum
    should appear from the Journal if a legislative act is to be vacated for
    such reason (IV, 2962), and where the assumption that a quorum was
    present when the House acted was uncontradicted by the Journal, it was
    held that this assumption might not be overthrown by expressions of
    opinion by Members individually (IV, 2961).

    [[Page 24]]

    the Chairman to the House (see Sec. 1027, infra). Clause 7 of rule XX
    now specifically precludes a point of no quorum unless a question has
    been put to a vote. However, the Speaker retains the right to recognize
    a Member to move a call of the House at any time (but may, under clause
    7(c) of rule XX recognize for a call of the House after the previous
    question has been ordered only when the Speaker determines by actual
    count that a quorum is not present). A point of order of no quorum
    during debate only in the House does not lie independently under this
    clause of the Constitution since former clause 6 of rule XV (current
    clause 7 of rule XX) is a proper exercise of the House's constitutional
    rulemaking authority which can be interpreted consistently with the
    requirement that a quorum be present to conduct business (as opposed to
    mere debate) (Sept. 8, 1977, p. 28114; Sept. 12, 1977, p. 28800).
      Major revisions in the House rules concerning the necessity and
    establishment of a quorum occurred in the 94th, 95th, and 96th
    Congresses. Under the practice in the 93d Congress, for example, a point
    of no quorum would prevent the report of the Chairman of a Committee of
    the Whole (VI, 666); but in the 93d Congress former clause 6 of rule XV
    (current clause 7 of rule XX) was adopted to provide that after the
    presence of a quorum is once ascertained on any day, a point of no
    quorum could not be entertained after the Committee had risen and
    pending the report of

      Before these recent changes to former rule XV (current rule XX), a
    quorum was required at all times during the reading of the Journal (IV,
    2732, 2733; VI, 625, 629) or messages from the President or the Senate
    (IV, 3522; VI 6600, 6650; VIII 3339); but the modern practice would
    require the presence of a quorum only when the question is put on a
    pending motion or proposition in the House such as on a motion incident
    to the reading, amendment, or approval of the Journal or on the referral
    or other disposition of other papers read to the House. A point of no
    quorum no longer lies during debate in the House. The practice in the
    Committee of the Whole is now governed by clause 6 of rule XVIII. No
    motion is in order on the failure of a quorum but the motions to adjourn
    and for a call of the House (IV, 2950; VI, 680) and the motion to
    adjourn has precedence over the motion for a call of the House (VIII,
    2642). A call of the House is in order under the Constitution before the
    adoption of the rules (IV, 2981). Those present on a call of the House
    may prescribe a fine as a condition on which an arrested Member may be
    discharged (IV, 3013, 3014), but this is rarely done. A quorum is not
    required on motions incidental to a call of the House (IV, 2994; VI,
    681; Oct. 8, 1940, p. 13403; and Oct. 8, 1968, p. 30090). The House may
    adjourn sine die in the absence of a quorum where both Houses have
    already adopted a concurrent resolution providing for a sine die
    adjournment on that day (Oct. 18, 1972, p. 37200).

    [[Page 25]]

    to order, announced the death of Speaker Rayburn during the sine die
    adjournment, and did not call unsworn Members-elect or Members who had
    resigned during the hiatus to establish a quorum or elect a new Speaker
    (Jan. 10, 1962, p. 5). In both Houses the oath has been administered to
    Members-elect in the absence of a quorum (I, 174, 181, 182; VI, 22),
    although in one case the Speaker objected to such proceedings (II, 875).
    Prayer by the Chaplain is not business requiring the presence of a
    quorum and the Speaker declines to entertain a point of no quorum before
    prayer is offered (VI, 663; clause 7 of rule XX).

    Sec. 56. Relations of the quorum to organization
    of the House.

      At the time  of organization the two Houses inform one another of the
    appearance of the quorum in each, and the two Houses jointly inform the
    President (I, 198-203). A message from one House that its quorum has
    appeared is not delivered in the other until a quorum has appeared there
    also (I, 126). But at the beginning of a second session of a Congress
    the House proceeded to business, although a quorum had not appeared in
    the Senate (I, 126). At the beginning of a second session of a Congress
    unsworn Members-elect were taken into account in ascertaining the
    presence of a quorum (I, 175); however, at the beginning of the second
    session of the 87th Congress, the Clerk called the House

    <>   \2\Each House may
    determine the Rules of its Proceedings, * * *

    Sec. 57. Decisions of the Court.

      Decisions  of the Supreme
    Court of the United States: Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 190 (1881);
    United States v. Ballin, 144 U.S. 1 (1892); Burton v. United States, 202
    U.S. 344 (1906).

    [[Page 26]]

    er ceases to be an officer of the House with the expiration of a
    Congress, the Clerk, by old usage, continues in a new Congress (I, 187,
    188, 235, 244; see 2 U.S.C. 26). In case of a vacancy in the
    Office of Clerk, Sergeant-at-Arms, Doorkeeper (abolished
    by the 104th Congress; see Sec. 663a, infra), Postmaster (abolished
    during the 102d Congress; see Sec. 668, infra), Chaplain, or Chief
    Administrative Officer, the Speaker is authorized to make temporary
    appointments (2 U.S.C. 75a-1). The House has adopted a rule before
    election of a Speaker (I, 94, 95); but in 1839 was deterred by the Act
    of June 1, 1789 and the Constitution from adopting rules before the
    administration of the oath to Members-elect (I, 140). The earlier theory
    that an officer might be empowered to administer oaths by a rule of
    either House has been abandoned in later practice and the authority has
    been conferred by law (III, 1823, 1824, 2079, 2303, 2479; 2 U.S.C. 191).

    Sec. 59. Power to make rules not impaired by
    rules or law.

      The power of  each House of Representatives to make its own rules may
    not be impaired or controlled by the rules of a preceding House (I, 187,
    210; V, 6002, 6743-6747), or by a law passed by a prior Congress (I, 82,
    245; IV, 3298, 3579; V, 6765, 6766). The House in adopting its rules
    may, however, incorporate by reference as a part thereof all applicable
    provisions of law which constituted the rules of the House at the end of
    the preceding Congress (H. Res. 5, 95th Cong., Jan. 4, 1977, pp. 53-70)
    and has also incorporated provisions of concurrent resolutions which
    were intended to remain applicable under the Budget Act (H. Res. 5,
    107th Cong., Jan. 3, 2001, p. ----). The House twice
    reaffirmed free-standing directives to the Committee on Standards of
    Official Conduct contained in a simple House resolution (H. Res. 168,
    105th Cong., p. ----, reaffirmed for the 106th Congress by sec. 2(c), H.
    Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. ----, and reaffirmed for the 107th Congress
    with an exception by sec. 3(a), H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 2001, p. ----; see
    Sec. 806, infra). In the 108th Congress those free-standing
    directives were codified in clause 3 of rule XI (sec. 2(h), H. Res. 5,
    Jan. 7, 2003, p. ----). Ordinary rights and functions of the
    House under the Constitution are exercised in accordance with the rules
    (III, 2567), and under later decisions questions of so-called
    constitutional privilege should also be considered in accordance with
    the rules (VI, 48; VII, 889; Apr. 8, 1926, p. 7147). But a law passed by
    an existing Congress with the concurrence of the House has been
    recognized by that House as of binding force in matters of procedure (V,
    6767, 6768). In exercising its constitutional power to change its rules
    the House may confine itself within certain limitations (V, 6756; VIII,
    3376); but the attempt of the House to deprive the Speaker of his vote
    as a Member by a rule was successfully resisted (V, 5966, 5967). While a
    the Act of June 1, 1789 (see 2 U.S.C. 25) requires the election of a
    Clerk before the House proceeds to business yet the House has held that
    it may adopt rules before electing a Clerk (I, 245). Although the Speak

    Sec. 60. Procedure in the House before the
    adoption of rules.

      Before the adoption  of rules the House is governed by general
    parliamentary law, but Speakers have been inclined to give weight to the
    rules and precedents of the House in modifying the usual constructions
    of that law (V, 5604, 6758-6760; VIII, 3384; Jan. 3, 1953, p. 24; Jan.
    10, 1967, p. 14). The general parliamentary law as understood in the
    House is founded on Jefferson's Manual as modified by the practice of
    American legislative assemblies, especially of the House of
    Representatives (V, 6761-6763; Jan. 3, 1953, p. 24), but the provisions
    of the House's accustomed rules are not necessarily followed (V, 5509).
    Prior to the adoption of rules, the statutory enactments incorporated
    into the rules of the prior Congress as an exercise of the rulemaking
    power do not control the proceedings of the new House until it adopts
    rules incorporating those provisions (Jan. 22, 1971, p. 132).

    [[Page 27]]

      Before the adoption of rules, it is in order for any Member who is
    recognized by the Chair to offer a proposition relating to the order of
    business without asking consent of the House (IV, 3060). Relying on the
    Act of June 1, 1789 (2 U.S.C. 25), the Clerk recognized for nominations
    for Speaker as being of higher constitutional privilege than a
    resolution to postpone the election of a Speaker and instead provide for
    the election of a Speaker pro tempore pending the disposition of certain
    ethics charges against the nominee of the majority party (Jan. 7, 1997,
    p. 115). The Speaker may recognize the Majority Leader to
    offer an initial resolution providing for the adoption of the rules as a
    question of privilege in its own right (IV, 3060; Deschler, ch. 1,
    Sec. 8), even prior to recognizing another Member to offer as a question
    of privilege another resolution calling into question the
    constitutionality of that resolution (Speaker Foley, Jan. 5, 1993, p.
    49). The Speaker also may recognize a Member to offer for immediate
    consideration a special order providing for the consideration of a
    resolution adopting the rules (H. Res. 5, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 447). The
    resolution adopting rules for a Congress has included a special order of
    business for consideration of specified legislation (sec. 108, H. Res.
    6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 463; sec. 3, H. Res. 5, Jan. 6, 1999, p. ----).

      During debate on the resolution adopting rules, any Member may make a
    point of order that a quorum is not present based upon general
    parliamentary precedents, since the provisions of former clause 6(e) of
    rule XV (current clause 7 of rule XX) prohibiting the Chair from
    entertaining such a point of order unless the question has been put on
    the pending proposition are not yet applicable (Jan. 15, 1979, p. 10).
    Before adoption of rules, under general parliamentary law as modified by
    usage and practice of the House, an amendment may be subject to the
    point of order that it is not germane to the proposition to which
    offered (Jan. 3, 1969, p. 23). Before adoption of rules, the Speaker may
    maintain decorum by directing a Member who has not been recognized in
    debate beyond an allotted time to be removed from the well and by
    directing the Sergeant-at-Arms to present the mace as the traditional
    symbol of order (Jan. 3, 1991, p. 58).

      The motion to commit is permitted after the previous question has been
    ordered on the resolution adopting the rules (V, 5604; Jan. 3, 1989, p.
    81; Jan. 3, 1991, p. 61) but is not debatable (Jan. 7, 1997, p.
    139). It is the prerogative of the minority to offer a
    motion to commit even prior to the adoption of the rules, but at that
    point the proponent need not qualify as opposed to the resolution (Jan.
    3, 1991, p. 61; Jan. 4, 1995, p. 457). Such a motion to commit is not
    divisible, but if it is agreed to and more than one amendment is
    reported back pursuant thereto, then separate votes may be had on the
    reported amendments (Jan. 5, 1993, p. 98). The motion to refer has also
    been permitted upon the offering of a resolution adopting the rules, and
    prior to debate thereon, subject to the motion to lay on the table (Jan.
    5, 1993, p. 52).

    Sec. 61. Joint rules.

      The two Houses  of Congress adopted in
    the early years of the Government joint rules to govern their procedure
    in matters requiring concurrent action; but in 1876 these joint rules
    were abrogated (IV, 3430; V, 6782-6787). The most useful of their
    provision continued to be observed in practice, however (IV, 3430; V,
    6592).

    Sec. 61a. Decisions of the Court.

      Decisions  of the Supreme
    Court of the United States: United States v. Smith, 286 U.S. 6 (1932);
    Christoffel v. United States, 338 U.S. 84 (1949); United States v.
    Bryan, 339 U.S. 323 (1950); Yellin v. United States, 374 U.S. 109
    (1963); Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969).

    Sec. 62. Punishment and expulsion of
    Members.

      * * * [Each House may]  punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the
    Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

    [[Page 28]]

    if not in violation of the Constitution; or (6) any other sanction
    determined by the Committee to be appropriate (rule 24, Committee on
    Standards of Official Conduct, 108th Cong.). Under rule 10 of the
    Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, a statement of alleged
    violation must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.

    Sec. 63. Punishment and expulsion,
    generally.

       Among the  punishments that the House may impose under this provision,
    the rules of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct outline the
    following: (1) expulsion from the House; (2) censure; (3) reprimand; (4)
    fine; (5) denial or limitation of any right, power, privilege, or
    immunity of the Member

      In action for censure or expulsion, the House has discussed whether or
    not the principles of the procedure of the courts should be followed
    (II, 1255, 1264). The House, in a proceeding for expulsion, declined to
    give the Member a trial at the bar (II, 1275); but the Senate has
    permitted a counsel to appear at its bar (II, 1263), although it
    declined to grant a request for a specific statement of charges or
    compulsory process for witnesses (II, 1264). In one instance, pending
    consideration of a resolution to censure a Member, the Speaker informed
    him that he should retire (II, 1366), but this is not usual. Members or
    Senators, against whom resolutions have been pending, have participated
    in debate either by consent to make a personal explanation (II, 1656) or
    without question as to consent (II, 1246, 1253, 1269, 1286). A Member
    against whom a resolution of censure was pending was asked by the
    Speaker if he desired to be heard (VI, 236). However, after the House
    had voted censure and the Member has been brought to the bar by the
    Sergeant-at-Arms to be censured, it was held that he might not then be
    heard (II, 1259). In the modern practice, the manager of the resolution
    proposing the punishment (who controls the entire hour) yields a portion
    of his time to the accused (Oct. 2, 1980, p. 28966; July 24, 2002, p. --
    --). In the latter case, the House extended debate on the resolution for
    a specified period and yielded that entire time to the Member who was
    the subject of the resolution (July 24, 2002, p. ----). The manager of
    the resolution has the right to close debate, not the Member who is the
    subject of the resolution (July 24, 2002, p. ----). Where the manager of
    a resolution has divided his hour three ways, the Chair announced that
    the order of closing speeches would be as follows: The minority manager
    of the resolution, the subject of the resolution, and the manager of the
    resolution (July 24, 2002, p. ----). Debate on a resolution recommending
    a disciplinary sanction against a Member may not exceed the scope of the
    conduct of the accused Member (Dec. 18, 1987, p. 36271).

    [[Page 29]]

      A resolution recommending reprimand, censure, or expulsion of a Member
    presents a question of privilege (II, 1254; III, 2648-2651; VI, 236;
    Dec. 9, 1913, pp. 584-86; July 26, 1990, p. 19717). If reported by the
    Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (or a derivation thereof),
    the resolution may be called up at any time after the committee has
    filed its report (Jan. 21, 1997, p. 393). Before debate, an expulsion
    resolution is subject to the motion to lay on the table (Oct. 1, 1976,
    p. 35111), to postpone to a date certain (Oct. 2, 1980, p. 28953; July
    24, 2002, p. ----), or to refer to committee (Mar. 1, 1979, p. 3753). A
    proposition to censure is not germane to a proposition to expel (VI,
    236).

      The Senate once expelled several Senators by a single resolution (II,
    1266); however, the House has refused to censure more than one Member by
    a single resolution (II, 1240, 1621).

    Sec. 64. Punishment by reprimand.

      In  the 94th Congress the
    House by adopting a report from the Committee on Standards of Official
    Conduct reprimanded a Member for failing to report certain financial
    holdings in violation of former rule XLIV (current rule XXVI) and for
    investing in stock in a Navy bank the establishment of which he was
    promoting, in violation of the Code of Ethics for Government Service (H.
    Res. 1421, July 29, 1976, pp. 24379-82). (For the Code of Ethics for
    Government Service, see H. Con. Res. 175, 85th Cong., 72 Stat. B12.) In
    the 95th Congress following an investigation by the Committee on
    Standards of Official Conduct into whether Members or employees had
    improperly accepted things of value from the Republic of Korea or
    representatives thereof, the House reprimanded three Members, one for
    falsely answering an unsworn questionnaire relative to such gifts and
    violating the Code of Official Conduct, one for failing to report as
    required by law the receipt of a campaign contribution and violating the
    Code of Official Conduct, and one for failing to report a campaign
    contribution, converting a campaign contribution to personal use,
    testifying falsely to the committee under oath, and violating the Code
    of Official Conduct (Oct. 13, 1978, pp. 36984, 37009, 37017). In the
    100th Congress the House adopted a resolution reprimanding a Member for
    ``ghost voting,'' improperly diverting government resources, and
    maintaining a ``ghost employee'' on his staff (Dec. 18, 1987, p. 36266).
    In the 101st Congress another was reprimanded for seeking dismissal of
    parking tickets received by a person with whom he had a personal
    relationship and not related to official business and for misstatements
    of fact in a memorandum relating to the criminal probation record of
    that person (July 26, 1990, p. 19717). In the 105th Congress the House
    reprimanded the Speaker and ordered him to reimburse a portion of the
    costs of the investigation by the Committee on Standards of Official
    Conduct (Jan. 21, 1997, p. 393).

    [[Page 30]]

    office employee's salary for repayment of that Member's personal
    expenses and who was unjustly enriched by clerk-hire employees' payments
    of personal expenses later compensated by salary increases, was censured
    and ordered to repay the amount of the unjust enrichment with interest
    (July 31, 1979, p. 21592); (2) a Member was censured for receiving over
    a period of time sums of money from a person with a direct interest in
    legislation in violation of former clause 4 of rule XLIII (current
    clause 3 of rule XXIII, and for transferring campaign funds into office
    and personal accounts (June 10, 1980, pp. 13801-20)). In the 98th
    Congress the House adopted two resolutions (as amended in the House),
    each censuring a Member for an improper relationship with a House page
    in a prior Congress (July 20, 1983, p. 20020 and p. 20030).

    Sec. 65. Punishment by censure.

      Censure  is inflicted by the
    Speaker (II, 1259) and the words are entered in the Journal (II, 1251,
    1656; VI 236), but the Speaker may not pronounce censure except by order
    of the House (VI, 237). When Members have resigned pending proceedings
    for censure, the House has nevertheless adopted the resolutions of
    censure (II, 1239, 1273, 1275, 1656). Members have been censured for
    personalities and other disorder in debate (II, 1251, 1253, 1254, 1259),
    assaults on the floor (II, 1665), for presenting a resolution alleged to
    be insulting to the House (II, 1246), and for corrupt acts (II, 1274,
    1286). For abuse of the leave to print, the House censured a Member
    after a motion to expel him had failed (VI, 236). In one instance
    Members were censured for acts before the election of the then existing
    House (II, 1286). In the 96th Congress two Members were censured by the
    House as follows: (1) A Member who during a prior Congress both
    knowingly increased an

    Sec. 66. Punishment by expulsion.

      Five  Members have been
    expelled in the history of the House. Among those, three were expelled
    for various offenses related to their service for the Confederacy in the
    Civil War: John B. Clark of Missouri (a Member-elect) (II, 1262, July
    13, 1861); Henry C. Burnett of Kentucky (II, 1261, Dec. 3, 1861); and
    John W. Reid of Missouri (II, 1261, Dec. 6, 1861). Michael J. Myers of
    Pennsylvania was expelled after being convicted in a Federal court of
    bribery and conspiracy in accepting funds to perform official duties
    (Oct. 2, 1980, p. 28978). James A. Traficant of Ohio was expelled after
    being convicted in a Federal court for crimes including (1) trading
    official acts and influence for things of value; (2) demanding and
    accepting salary kickbacks from his congressional employees; (3)
    influencing a congressional employee to destroy evidence and to provide
    false testimony to a Federal grand jury; (4) receiving personal labor
    and the services of his congressional employees while they were being
    paid by the taxpayers to perform public service; and (5) filing false
    income tax returns (July 24, 2002, p. ----). Three Senators were
    expelled for their association with the Confederates during the Civil
    War (II, 1268-1270).

    [[Page 31]]

    July 31, 1979, p. 21592; H. Res. 660, June 10, 1980, pp. 13801-20). It
    has been held that the power of the House to expel one of its Members is
    unlimited; a matter purely of discretion to be exercised by a two-thirds
    vote, from which there is no appeal (VI, 78). The resignation of the
    accused Member has always caused a suspension of proceedings for
    expulsion (II, 1275, 1276, 1279; VI, 238). Following the expulsion of a
    Member, the Clerk notifies the Governor of the relevant state of the
    action of the House (July 24, 2002, p. ----).
      The power of expulsion has been the subject of much discussion (I,
    469, 476, 481; II, 1264, 1265, 1269; VI, 56, 398; see Powell v.
    McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969)). In one case a Member-elect who had not
    taken the oath was expelled (II, 1262), and in another case the power to
    do this was discussed (I, 476). In one instance the Senate assumed to
    annul its action of expulsion (II, 1243). The Supreme Court has decided
    that a judgment of conviction under a disqualifying statute does not
    compel the Senate to expel (II, 1282; Burton v. United States, 202 U.S.
    344 (1906)). The power of expulsion in its relation to offenses
    committed before the Members' election has been discussed (II, 1264,
    1284, 1285, 1286, 1288, 1289; VI, 56, 238). In one case the Judiciary
    Committee of the House concluded that a Member might not be punished for
    an offense alleged to have been committed against a preceding Congress
    (II, 1283); but the House itself declined to express doubt as to its
    power to expel and proceeded to inflict censure (II, 1286). In addition,
    the 96th Congress punished Members on two occasions for offenses
    committed during a prior Congress (H. Res. 378,

    Sec. 67. Decisions of the Court.

      Decisions  of the Supreme
    Court of the United States: Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wh. 204 (1821); Kilbourn
    v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168 (1881); United States v. Ballin, 144 U.S. 1
    (1892); In re Chapman, 166 U.S. 661 (1897); Burton v. United States, 202
    U.S. 344 (1906); Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969).

    Sec. 68. Each House to keep a journal.

      \3\Each House  shall
    keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the
    same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; * *
    *

    Sec. 69. The Journal the official
    record.

      The Journal and  not the Congressional Record is the official record of the
    proceedings of the House (IV, 2727). Its nature and functions have been
    the subject of extended discussions (IV, 2730, footnote). The House has
    fixed its title (IV, 2728). While it ought to be a correct transcript of
    the proceedings of the House, the House has not insisted on a strict
    chronological order of entries (IV, 2815). The Journal is dated as of
    the legislative and not the calendar day (IV, 2746).

    Sec. 70. Journal a record of proceedings
    and not of reasons.

      The Journal records  proceedings but not the reasons therefor (IV,
    2811) or the circumstances attending (IV, 2812), or the statements or
    opinions of Members (IV, 2817-2820). Exceptions to this rule are rare
    (IV, 2808, 2825). Protests have on rare occasions been admitted by the
    action of the House (IV, 2806, 2807), but the entry of a protest on the
    Journal may not be demanded by a Member as a matter of right (IV, 2798)
    and such demand does not present a question of privilege (IV, 2799). A
    motion not entertained is not entered on the Journal (IV, 2813, 2844-
    46).

    [[Page 32]]

    Journal which had the effect of collaterally changing the tabling of a
    motion to reconsider. In fact, under the precedents cited in Sec. 902,
    infra, under clause 1 of rule XVI it has been held not in order to amend
    or strike out a Journal entry setting forth a motion exactly as made
    (IV, 2783, 2789), and thus it was held not in order to amend the Journal
    by striking out a resolution actually offered (IV, 2789), but on one
    occasion the House vacated the Speaker's referral of an executive
    communication by amending the Journal of the preceding day (Mar. 19,
    1990, p. 4488). Only on rare instances has the House nullified
    proceedings by rescinding the records of them in the Journal (IV, 2787),
    the House and Senate usually insisting on the accuracy of its Journal
    (IV, 2783, 2786). In rare instances the House and Senate have rescinded
    or expunged entries in Journals of preceding Congresses (IV, 2730,
    footnote, 2792, 2793).

    Sec. 71. House's absolute control of entries
    in the Journal.

      While the House  controls the Journal and may decide what are
    proceedings, even to the extent of omitting things actually done or
    recording things not done (IV, 2784; VI, 634), and while the Speaker has
    entertained a motion to amend the Journal so as to cause it to state
    what was not the fact, leaving it for the House to decide on the
    propriety of the act (IV, 2785), holding that he could not prevent a
    majority of the House from so amending the Journal as to undo an actual
    transaction (IV, 3091-93), in none of those rulings was an amendment
    permitted to correct the

    Sec. 72. Record of votes in the
    Journal.

      The Journal should  record the result of every vote and state in general terms
    the subject of it (IV, 2804); but the result of a vote is recorded in
    figures only when the yeas and nays are taken (IV, 2827), when the vote
    is recorded by electronic device or by clerks, or when a vote is taken
    by ballot, it having been determined in latest practice that the Journal
    should show not only the result but the state of the ballot or ballots
    (IV, 2832).

    Sec. 73. Approval of the Journal.

      It is the  uniform practice
    of the House to approve its Journal for each legislative day (IV, 2731).
    Where Journals of more than one session remain unapproved, they are
    taken up for approval in chronological order (IV, 2771-2773). In
    ordinary practice the Journal is approved by the House without the
    formal putting of the motion to vote (IV, 2774).

      The former rule required the reading of the Journal on each
    legislative day. The reading could be dispensed with only by unanimous
    consent (VI, 625) or suspension of the rules (IV, 2747-2750) and had to
    be in full when demanded by any Member (IV, 2739-2741; VI, 627-628; Feb.
    22, 1950, p. 2152).

    [[Page 33]]

    ment of impeachment (VI, 469), and questions of the privileges of the
    House (II, 1630), and the Speaker may in his discretion recognize for a
    parliamentary inquiry before approval of the Journal (VI, 624). Under
    clause 1 of rule I, as amended in the 96th Congress, a point of order of
    no quorum is not in order before the Speaker announces his approval of
    the Journal. Clause 7 of rule XX generally prohibits the making of
    points of order of no quorum unless the Speaker has put the question on
    the pending motion or proposition.
      The present form of the rule (clause 1 of rule I; see Sec. 621, infra)
    was drafted from section 127 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of
    1970 (84 Stat. 1140), incorporated into the standing rules in the 92d
    Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 22, 1971, p. 144), and was further amended in
    the 96th Congress (H. Res. 5, Jan. 15, 1979, pp. 7-16). Under the
    current practice, the Speaker is authorized to announce his approval of
    the Journal which is deemed agreed to by the House, subject to the right
    of any Member to demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval
    (which if decided in the affirmative is not subject to the motion to
    reconsider). In the 98th Congress, the Speaker was given the authority
    to postpone a record vote on agreeing to his approval of the Journal to
    a later time on that legislative day (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1983, p. 34).
    While the transaction of any business is not in order before approval of
    the Journal (IV, 2751; VI, 629, 637; Oct. 8, 1968, p. 30096), approval
    of the Journal yields to the simple motion to adjourn (IV, 2757),
    administration of the oath (I, 171, 172), an arraign

    Sec. 74. Motions to amend the
    Journal.

      Under the practice  before clause 1 of rule I was adopted in its present form,
    the motion to amend the Journal took precedence over the motion to
    approve it (IV, 2760; VI, 633); but the motion to amend may not be
    admitted after the previous question is demanded on a motion to approve
    (IV, 2770; VI, 633; VIII, 2684). An expression of opinion as to a
    decision of the Chair was held not in order as an amendment to the
    Journal (IV, 2848). A proposed amendment to the Journal being tabled
    does not carry the Journal with it (V, 5435, 5436). While a proposed
    correction of the Journal may be recorded in the Journal, yet it is not
    in order to insert in full in this indirect way what has been denied
    insertion in the first instance (IV, 2782, 2804, 2805). The earlier
    practice was otherwise, however (IV, 2801-2803). The Journal of the last
    day of a session is not approved on the assembling of the next session,
    and is not ordinarily amended (IV, 2743, 2744). For further discussion
    of the composition and approval of the Journal, see Deschler, ch. 5.

    Sec. 74a. Decisions of the Court.

      Decisions  of the Supreme
    Court of the United States: Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649 (1892); United
    States v. Ballin, 144 U.S. 1 (1892).

    Sec. 75. Yeas and Nays entered on the
    Journal.

      * * * and the  Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question
    shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the
    Journal.

    [[Page 34]]

    the Speaker and the House to take notice of that fact (IV, 2953, 2963,
    2988). If the House adjourns, the order for the yeas and nays remains
    effective whenever the bill again comes before the House (V, 6014, 6015;
    VI, 740; VIII, 3108), and it has been held that the question of
    consideration might not intervene on a succeeding day before the second
    calling of the yeas and nays (V, 4949). However, when the call of the
    House is automatic, the Speaker directs the roll to be called or the
    vote to be taken by electronic device without motion from the floor (VI,
    678, 679, 694, 695); and should a quorum fail to vote and the House
    adjourn, proceedings under the automatic call are vacated and the
    question recurs de novo when the bill again comes before the House (Oct.
    10, 1940, pp. 13534-35; Oct. 13, 1962, p. 23474; Oct. 19, 1966, p.
    27641). While the Constitution and the Rules of the House guarantee that
    votes taken by the yeas and nays be spread upon the Journal, neither
    requires that a Member's vote be announced to the public immediately
    during the vote (Sept. 19, 1985, p. 24245).

    Sec. 76. Conditions of ordering yeas and
    nays.

      The yeas and  nays may be ordered before the organization of the House (I, 91;
    V, 6012, 6013), but are not taken in Committee of the Whole (IV, 4722,
    4723). They are not necessarily taken on the passage of a resolution
    proposing an amendment to the Constitution (V, 7038, 7039; VIII, 3506),
    but are required to pass a bill over a veto (Sec. 104; VII, 1110). In
    the earlier practice of the House it was held that less than a quorum
    might not order the yeas and nays, but for many years the decisions have
    been uniformly the other way (V, 6016-6028). Neither is a quorum
    necessary on a motion to reconsider the vote whereby the yeas and nays
    are ordered (V, 5693). When a quorum fails on a yea and nay vote it is
    the duty of

      The yeas and nays may not be demanded until the Speaker has put the
    question in the form prescribed by former clause 5 (current clause 6) of
    rule I (Oct. 2, 1974, p. 33623).

    Sec. 77. Demanding the yeas and nays.

      The yeas and  nays may
    be demanded while the Speaker is announcing the result of a division (V,
    6039), while a vote by tellers is being taken (V, 6038), and even after
    the announcement of the vote if the House has not passed to other
    business (V, 6040, 6041; VIII, 3110). But after the Speaker has
    announced the result of a division on a motion and is in the act of
    putting the question on another motion it is too late to demand the yeas
    and nays on the first motion (V, 6042). And it is not in order during
    the various processes of a division to repeat a demand for the yeas and
    nays which has once been refused by the House (V, 6029, 6030, 6031). The
    constitutional right of a Member to demand the yeas and nays may not be
    overruled as dilatory (V, 5737; VIII, 3107); but this constitutional
    right does not exist as to a vote to second a motion when such second is
    required by the rules (V, 6032-6036; VIII, 3109). The right to demand
    yeas and nays is not waived by the fact that the Member demanding them
    has just made the point of no quorum and caused the Chair to count the
    House (V, 6044).-

    [[Page 35]]

    by tellers, has refused to order the yeas and nays it is too late to
    demand the count of the negative on an original vote (V, 6045).

    Sec. 78. Yeas and nays ordered by onefifth.

      In passing on  a
    demand for the yeas and nays the Speaker need determine only whether
    one-fifth of those present sustain the demand (V, 6043; VIII, 3112,
    3115). In ascertaining whether one-fifth of those present support a
    demand for the yeas and nays the Speaker counts the entire number
    present and not merely those who rise to be counted (VIII, 3111, 3120).
    Such count is not subject to verification by appeal (Sept. 12, 1978, p.
    28984), and a request for a rising vote of those opposed to the demand
    is not in order (VIII, 3112-3114). Where the Chair prolongs his count of
    the House in determining whether one-fifth have supported the demand for
    yeas and nays, he counts latecomers in support of the demand as well as
    for the number present (Sept. 24, 1990, p. 25521). After the House, on a
    vote

    Sec. 79. Reconsideration of the vote ordering the
    yeas and nays.

      A motion to  reconsider the vote ordering the yeas and nays is in
    order (V, 6029; VIII, 2790), and the vote may be reconsidered by a
    majority. If the House votes to reconsider the yeas and nays may again
    be ordered by one-fifth (V, 5689-5691). But when the House, having
    reconsidered, again orders the yeas and nays, a second motion to
    reconsider may not be made (V, 6037). In one instance it was held that
    the yeas and nays might be demanded on a motion to reconsider the vote
    whereby the yeas and nays were ordered (V, 5689), but evidently there
    must be a limit to this process. The vote whereby the yeas and nays are
    refused may be reconsidered (V, 5692).

    Sec. 80. Effect of an order of the yeas
    and nays.

      A motion  to adjourn may be admitted after the yeas and nays are
    ordered and before the roll call has begun (V, 5366); and a motion to
    suspend the rules has been entertained after the yeas and nays have been
    demanded on another matter (V, 6835). Consideration of a conference
    report (V, 6457), and a motion to reconsider the vote by which the yeas
    and nays were ordered (V, 6029; VIII, 2790) may be admitted. A demand
    for tellers or for a division is not precluded or set aside by the fact
    that the yeas and nays are demanded and refused (V, 5998; VIII, 3103).

    Sec. 81. Decisions of the Court.

      Decisions  of the Supreme
    Court of the United States: Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649 (1892); United
    States v. Ballin, 144 U.S. 1 (1892); Twin City Bank v. Nebeker, 167 U.S.
    196 (1897); Wilkes County v. Coler, 180 U.S. 506 (1901); Marshall v.
    Gordon, 243 U.S. 521 (1917).

    Sec. 82. Adjournment for more than three
    days or to another place.

      \4\Neither House,  during the Session of Congress
    shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three
    days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be
    sitting.

    [[Page 36]]

    13, 2003, p. ----). A concurrent resolution adjourning both Houses for
    more than three days, or sine die, normally includes joint leadership
    authority to reassemble the Members whenever the public interest shall
    warrant it (Sec. 84, infra). After September 11, 2001, such recall
    authority has allowed reassembly at such place as may be designated
    (see, e.g., S. Con. Res. 160, Nov. 22, 2002, p. ----). The President may
    convene Congress at places outside the seat of Government during
    hazardous circumstances (2 U.S.C. 27; Deschler, ch. 1, Sec. 4).
      The word ``Place'' in the above paragraph was construed to mean the
    seat of Government, and consent of the Senate is not required where the
    House orders its meetings to be held in another structure at the seat of
    Government (Speaker Rayburn, Aug. 17, 1949, pp. 11651, 11683).
    Under clause 12(d) of rule I, the Speaker may convene the House
    in a place within the District of Columbia, other than the Hall of the
    House, whenever, in his opinion, the public interest shall warrant it
    (Sec. 639, infra). In the 108th Congress the two Houses granted joint
    leadership authority for the entire Congress to assemble the Congress at
    a place outside the District of Columbia whenever the public interest
    shall warrant it (H. Con. Res. 1, Feb.

      In recent practice a concurrent resolution of adjournment permits the
    designee of the Speaker and the Majority Leader of the Senate to recall
    the Congress when circumstances so warrant (July 26, 2002, p. ----). In
    the 108th Congress the Speaker executed by letter his designation under
    any concurrent resolution of adjournment during that Congress, as well
    as his designation under House Concurrent Resolution 1 (Mar. 13, 2003,
    p. ----).

      On November 22, 1940, p. 13715, the House of Representatives adopted a
    resolution providing that thereafter until otherwise ordered its
    meetings be held in the Caucus room of the new House Office Building.
    Likewise the Senate on the same day, p. 13709, provided that its
    meetings be held in the Chamber formerly occupied by the Supreme Court
    in the Capitol. The two Houses continued to hold their sessions in these
    rooms until the opening of the 77th Congress. These actions were
    necessitated because of the precarious condition of the roofs in the two
    Chambers. On June 28, 1949, p. 8571, and on September 1, 1950, p. 14140,
    the House provided that until otherwise ordered its meetings be held in
    the Caucus room of the new House Office Building, pending the remodeling
    of its Chamber. On June 29, 1949, p. 8584, and on Aug. 9, 1950, p.
    12106, the Senate provided that its meetings be held in the Chamber
    formerly occupied by the Supreme Court in the Capitol, pending
    remodeling of its Chamber. The House returned to its Chamber on January
    3, 1950, and again on January 1, 1951. The Senate returned to its
    Chamber on January 3, 1950, and again on January 3, 1951.

      There has been no occasion for the convening of a session of Congress
    outside the seat of Government. However, the Congress has engaged in
    ceremonial functions outside the seat of Government, which were
    authorized by concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 131, May 28, 1987, p.
    14031; H. Con. Res. 96, Apr. 18, 1989, p. 6834; H. Con. Res. 448, July
    25, 2002, p. ----).-

    [[Page 37]]

    ing order provided that it should meet on two days only of each week
    instead of daily (V, 6675). Before the election of Speaker, the House
    has adjourned for more than one day (I, 89, 221). The House has by
    unanimous consent agreed to an adjournment for less than three days but
    specified that it would continue in adjournment for 10 days pursuant to
    a concurrent resolution already passed by the House if the Senate
    adopted the concurrent resolution before the third day of the House's
    adjournment (Nov. 20, 1987, p. 33054). The Committee on Rules has
    reported a rule authorizing the Speaker to declare the House in recesses
    subject to calls of the Chair during five discrete periods, each
    consistent with the constitutional constraint that neither House adjourn
    (or recess) for more than three days without consent of the other House
    (Dec. 21, 1995, p. 38141; Jan. 5, 1996, p. 357). Under clause
    12(c) of rule I, during any recess or adjournment of not more than three
    days, if the Speaker is notified by the Sergeant-at-Arms of an imminent
    impairment of the place of reconvening, then he may, in consultation
    with the Minority Leader, postpone the time for reconvening within the
    three-day limit prescribed by the Constitution. In the alternative, the
    Speaker, under the same conditions, may reconvene the House before the
    time previously appointed solely to declare the House in recess within
    that three-day limit (see Sec. 639, infra).

    Sec. 83. Adjournment of the House within the
    threeday limit.

      The House of  Representatives in adjourning for not more than three
    days must take into the count either the day of adjourning or the day of
    the meeting, and Sunday is not taken into account in making this
    computation (V, 6673, 6674). By special order, the House may provide for
    a session of the House on a Sunday, traditionally a ``dies non'' under
    the precedents of the House (Dec. 17, 1982, p. 31946; Dec. 18, 1987, p.
    36352; Nov. 17, 1989, p. 30029; Aug. 20, 1994, p. 23367). The House has
    by stand

    [[Page 38]]

    Congress provided for an adjournment of the Senate to a day certain and
    granted the consent of the Senate to an adjournment of the House for
    more than three days to a day certain, or to any day before that day as
    determined by the House (S. Con. Res. 102, May 27, 1982, pp. 12504,
    12505). On one occasion the two Houses provided for an adjournment to a
    certain day, with a provision that if there should be no quorum present
    on that day the session should terminate (V, 6686).

    Sec. 84. Resolutions for adjournment of
    the two Houses.

      Congress is adjourned  for more than three days by a concurrent resolution
    (IV, 4031, footnote). When it adjourns in this way, but not to or beyond
    the day fixed by Constitution or law for the next regular session to
    begin, the session is not thereby necessarily terminated (V, 6676,
    6677). Until the 67th Congress neither House had ever adjourned for more
    than three days by itself with the consent of the other, but resolutions
    had been offered for the accomplishment of that end (V, 6702, 6703). At
    the close of the first session of the 66th Congress, the two Houses
    adjourned sine die under authority granted each House by simple
    resolutions consenting to such adjournment sine die at any time prior to
    a specified date (Nov. 19, 1919, p. 8810). On June 30, 1922, the House
    adjourned until August 15, 1922, with the consent of the Senate.
    Pursuant to a concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 266) the Senate
    granted its consent to an adjournment sine die of the House on August
    20, 1954, and the House granted its consent to the Senate to an
    adjournment sine die at any time prior to December 25, 1954. The Senate
    acting under the authority of the aforementioned resolution adjourned
    sine die on December 2, 1954. The adjournment resolution in the second
    session of the 97th Congress provided for adjournment sine die of the
    House on December 20 or December 21 pursuant to a motion made by the
    Majority Leader or his designee, and granted the consent of the House to
    adjournment sine die of the Senate at any time prior to January 3, 1983,
    as determined by the Senate, and the consent of the House for
    adjournments or recesses of the Senate for periods of more than three
    days as determined by the Senate during such period (H. Con. Res. 438,
    Dec. 20, 1982, p. 32951). Another concurrent resolution in the 97th

      The two Houses have adjourned to a certain day, with a
    provision that they may be reassembled by the Leadership if legislative
    expediency so required such reassembling (July 8, 1943, p. 7516; June
    23, 1944, p. 6667; Sept. 21, 1944, p. 8109; July 18, 1945, p. 7733; July
    26, 1947, p. 10521; June 20, 1948, p. 9348; Aug. 7, 1948, p. 10247), and
    in the 91st Congress, the two Houses agreed to a concurrent resolution
    adjourning both to dates certain but which also provided that the House
    was subject to recall by the Speaker if legislative expediency so
    warranted (July 20, 1970, p. 24978). In the 93d Congress, first and
    second sessions, the two Houses agreed to concurrent resolutions
    adjourning the Congress sine die with a provision that the two Houses
    could be reassembled by the Leadership (Dec. 22, 1973, p. 43327; Dec.
    20, 1974, p. 41815). Recall provisions were also included in the sine
    die adjournment resolutions for the first and second sessions of the
    101st Congress (Nov. 21, 1989, p. 31156; Oct. 27, 1990, p. 36850), the
    second session of the 104th Congress (Oct. 3, 1996, p.
    12275), the first session of the 105th Congress (Nov. 13,
    1997, p. ----), and the second session of the 106th Congress (Dec. 15,
    2000, p. ----). Joint leadership and House only recall provisions were
    included in the sine die adjournment resolution for the second session
    of the 105th Congress (Oct. 20, 1998, p. ----), and the Speaker
    exercised his recall authority under this resolution to reassemble the
    House (Dec. 17, 1998, p. ----). Resolutions containing recall provisions
    normally permit the motion to adjourn sine die only by the Majority
    Leaders or their designees (Dec. 19, 1985, p. 38358; Oct. 17, 1986, p.
    33096). The sine die adjournment resolution for the first session of the
    102d Congress provided for an adjournment of the House and Senate until
    11:55 a.m. on January 3, 1992, or until recalled by their joint
    leaderships (H. Con. Res. 260, Nov. 26, 1991, p. 35840). Since
    September 11, 2001, recall authority has allowed reassembly at such
    place as may be designated (see, e.g., S. Con. Res. 160, Nov. 22, 2002,
    p. ----). More recently, such recall authority permitted recall by
    designees of the Speaker and the Majority Leader of the Senate (see,
    e.g., S. Con. Res. 132, July 26, 2002, p. ----). In the 108th Congress
    the Speaker executed by letter his designation under any concurrent
    resolution of adjournment during that Congress, as well as his
    designation under House Concurrent Resolution 1 (Mar. 13, 2003, p. ----
    ).

    [[Page 39]]

      A resolution adopted in the first session of the 106th Congress
    provided for an adjournment to a date certain, unless the House sooner
    received a specified message from the Senate, in which case it would
    stand adjourned sine die (Nov. 18, 1999, p. ----).

      A resolution providing for the sine die adjournment of the
    first session may contain a proviso that when the second session
    convenes the Senate and House may not conduct organizational or
    legislative business but shall adjourn on that day until a date certain,
    unless sooner recalled (H. Con. Res. 260, 102d Cong., Nov. 26, 1991, p.
    35840; H. Con. Res. 235, 106th Cong., Nov. 18, 1999, p. ----). That
    prohibition against the conduct of business was considered not to
    preclude recognition for one-minute speeches and special-order speeches
    by unanimous consent (Jan. 3, 1992, pp. 2, 9) or the introduction and
    numbering of bills and resolutions (which would not be noted in the
    Congressional Record or referred by the Speaker until the next
    legislative day, when executive communications, petitions, and memorials
    also would be numbered and referred) (Jan. 24, 2000, p. ----).

      A concurrent resolution to provide for adjournment for more than three
    days is offered in the House as a matter of privilege (V, 6701-6706),
    and is not debatable (VIII, 3372-3374). The Legislative Reorganization
    Act of 1970 provides for a sine die adjournment, or (in an odd numbered
    year) an adjournment of slightly over a month (from that Friday in
    August which is at least 30 days before Labor Day to the Wednesday
    following Labor Day) unless the nation is in a state of war, declared by
    Congress (sec. 461(b); 84 Stat. 1140). Congress may, of course, waive,
    this requirement and make other determinations regarding its adjournment
    (see Sec. 1106, infra).

      The requirement that resolutions providing for an adjournment sine die
    of either House may not be considered until Congress has completed
    action on the second concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal
    year in question, and on any reconciliation legislation required by such
    a resolution, contained in section 310(f) of the Congressional Budget
    Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-344), was repealed by the Balanced Budget and
    Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-177). That law amended
    sections 309 and 310 of the Congressional Budget Act to prohibit the
    consideration of concurrent resolutions during the month of July
    providing adjournments in excess of three days until the House has
    approved general annual appropriation bills within the jurisdictions of
    all the subcommittees on Appropriations for the ensuing fiscal year, and
    until the House has completed action on all reconciliation legislation
    for the ensuing fiscal year required to be reported by the concurrent
    resolution on the budget for that year (see Sec. 1127, infra).

     * * *

    [[Page 40]]

      A resolution providing for an adjournment sine die is not debatable
    (VIII, 3372-3374), though a Member may be recognized during its
    consideration under a reservation of objection to a unanimous-consent
    request that the resolution be agreed to (Oct. 27, 1990, p. 36850).

    Sec. 85. Compensation of
    Members.

      Section 6. \1\The Senators  and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their
    Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the
    United States.

      The 27th amendment to the Constitution addresses laws varying the
    compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives (see
    Sec. 258, infra). The present rate of compensation of Representatives,
    the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico, and Delegates is $145,100
    per annum. The rate of compensation of the Speaker and the Vice
    President is $186,300 per annum (2 U.S.C. 31; 3 U.S.C. 104) with an
    additional $10,000 per annum to assist in defraying expenses (2 U.S.C.
    31b; 3 U.S.C. 111). The Majority and Minority Leaders of the House
    receive $161,200 per annum (2 U.S.C. 31). These rates of compensation
    are all (except for the expense allowances) subject to annual cost of
    living adjustments (2 U.S.C. 31(2)). The present rate of compensation of
    Senators is that fixed by section 1101 of Public Law 101-194, as
    adjusted pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 31(2).

    Sec. 86. Salary and deductions.

      Under  the Federal Salary Act
    of 1967 (2 U.S.C. 351-362), the Citizens' Commission on Public Service
    and Compensation (formerly the Commission on Executive, Legislative and
    Judicial Salaries) is authorized and directed to conduct quadrennial
    reviews of the rates of pay of specified government officials, including
    Members of Congress, and to report to the President the results of each
    review and its recommendations for adjustments in such rates. The
    enactment of those recommendations is governed by the Federal Salary Act
    (see Sec. 1130(12), infra).

      The statute also provides for deductions from the pay of Members and
    Delegates who are absent from the sessions of the House for reasons
    other than illness of themselves and families, or who retire before the
    end of the Congress (2 U.S.C. 39; IV, 3011, footnote). The law as to
    deductions has been held to apply only to Members who have taken the
    oath (II, 1154). Members and Delegates are paid monthly on certificate
    of the Speaker (2 U.S.C. 34, 35, 37, 57a). The law also provides that
    the residence of a Member of Congress for purpose of imposing State
    income tax laws shall be the State from which elected and not the State,
    or subdivision thereof, in which the Member maintains an abode for the
    purpose of attending sessions of Congress (4 U.S.C. 113).

    [[Page 41]]

    cessor has ceased, Page v. United States, 127 U.S. 67 (1888). See also 2
    U.S.C. 37.

    Sec. 87. Questions as to
    compensation.

      Questions have arisen  frequently as to compensation of Members especially in
    cases of Members elected to fill vacancies (I, 500; II, 1155) and where
    there have been questions as to incompatible offices (I, 500) or titles
    seat (II, 1206). The Supreme Court has held that a Member chosen to fill
    a vacancy is entitled to salary only from the time that the compensation
    of his prede

    Sec. 88. Travel and Members' representational
    allowances.

      In the 92d  Congress, the provisions of H. Res. 457 of that Congress,
    authorizing the Committee on House Administration to adjust allowances
    of Members and committees without further action by the House, were
    enacted into permanent law (2 U.S.C. 57), but the 94th Congress enacted
    into permanent law H. Res. 1372 of that Congress, stripping the
    Committee of that authority and requiring House approval of the
    committee's recommendations, except in cases made necessary by price
    changes in materials and supplies, technological advances in office
    equipment, and cost of living increases (2 U.S.C. 57a). The Committee on
    House Administration retains authority under 2 U.S.C. 57 to
    independently adjust amounts under certain conditions outlined in 2
    U.S.C. 57a (Mar. 21, 1977, p. 8227; Apr. 21, 1983, p. 9339). The text of
    those statutes follow:

        ``Sec. 57. Adjustment of House of Representatives allowances by

                        Committee on House Administration

      ``(a) In general.--Subject to the provision of law specified in
    subsection (b) of this section, the Committee on House Administration of
    the House of Representatives may, by order of the Committee, fix and
    adjust the amounts, terms, and conditions of, and other matters relating
    to, allowances of the House of Representatives within the following
    categories:

              ``(1) For Members of the House of Representatives, the

            Members' Representational Allowance, including all aspects of

            the Official Mail Allowance within the jurisdiction of the

            Committee under section 59(e) of this title.

              ``(2) For committees, the Speaker, the Majority and Minority

            Leaders, the Clerk, the Sergeant at Arms, and the Chief

            Administrative Officer, allowances for official mail (including

            all aspects of the Official Mail Allowance within the

            jurisdiction of the Committee under section 59e of this title),

            stationery, and telephone and telegraph and other

            communications.

      ``(b) Provision specified.--The provision of law referred to in
    subsection (a) of this section is section 57a of this title.

    [[Page 42]]

      ``(c) Member of the House of Representatives defined.--As used in this
    section, the term `Member of the House of Representatives' means a
    Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the
    Congress.''

      ``Sec. 57a. Limitation on allowance authority of Committee on House

                                 Administration.

      ``(a) In general.--An order under the provision of law specified in
    subsection (c) of this section may fix or adjust the allowances of the
    House of Representatives only by reason of--

              ``(1) a change in the price of materials, services, or office

            space;

              ``(2) a technological change or other improvement in office

            equipment; or

              ``(3) an increase under section 5303 of title 5 in rates of

            pay under the General Schedule.

      ``(b) Resolution requirement.--In the case of reasons other than the
    reasons specified in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subsection (a) of
    this section, the fixing and adjustment of the allowances of the House
    of Representatives in the categories described in the provision of law
    specified in subsection (c) of this section may be carried out only by
    resolution of the House of Representatives.

      ``(c) Provision specified.--The provision of law referred to in
    subsections (a) and (b) of this section is section 57 of this title.''

      In the 104th Congress the Committee on House Administration
    promulgated an order abolishing separate allowances for Clerk Hire,
    Official Expenses, and Official Mail, in favor of a single ``Members'
    Representational Allowance'' (MRA), which was ultimately enacted into
    law (2 U.S.C. 57b). The MRA is provided for the employment of staff in
    the Member's Washington and district offices, official expenses incurred
    by the Member, and the postage expenses of first, third, and fourth
    class frankable mail.

      Until January 1, 1988, the maximum salary for staff members was the
    rate of basic pay authorized for Level V of the Executive Schedule (by
    order of the Committee on House Administration, Mar. 21, 1977, p. 8227).
    Under section 311 of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1988, as
    contained in section 101(i) of Public Law 100-202 (2 U.S.C. 60a-
    2a), the maximum salary for staff members is set by pay order of
    the Speaker. A Member may not employ a relative on his MRA (5 U.S.C.
    3110). The Code of Official Conduct also precludes certain hiring
    practices of Members (see Sec. 1095, inra.).

      Until the 103d Congress, a Member could employ a ``Lyndon Baines
    Johnson Congressional Intern'' for a maximum of two months at not to
    exceed $1,160 per month. Such internships were available for college
    students and secondary or postsecondary school teachers (H. Res. 420,
    93d Cong., Sept. 18, 1973, p. 30186). Any paid internship is now funded
    through the MRA.

    [[Page 43]]

    extended those provisions to any termination of service by a Member
    during the term of office (H. Res. 804, Oct. 2, 1980, p. 28978).
      The statutes provide for continuation of the pay of clerical
    assistants to a Member upon his or her death or resignation, until a
    successor is elected to fill the vacancy, such clerical assistants to
    perform their duties under the direction of the Clerk of the House (2
    U.S.C. 92a-92d). Upon the explusion of a Member in the 96th Congress,
    the House by resolution

      For current information on the MRA and the method of its accounting
    and disbursement, see current U.S. House of Representatives
    Congressional Handbook, Committee on House Administration.

    Sec. 88a. Ban on Legislative Service
    Organizations.

      At its  organization the 104th Congress prohibited the
    establishment or continuation of any legislative service organization
    (as that term had been understood in the 103d Congress) and directed the
    Committee on House Administration to take such steps as were necessary
    to ensure an orderly termination and accounting for funds of any
    legislative service organization in existence on January 3, 1995 (sec.
    222, H. Res. 6, Jan. 4, 1995, p. 477).

    Sec. 89. Leadership staff allowances.

      Separate from the  MRA
    specified above, the leaders of the House (the Speaker, Majority Leader,
    Minority Leader, Majority Whip and Minority Whip) are entitled to office
    staffing allowances consisting of certain statutory positions as well as
    lump-sum appropriations authorized by section 473 (84 Stat. 1140). The
    portion of these allowances for leadership office personnel may be
    adjusted by the Clerk of the House in certain situations when the
    President effects a pay adjustment for certain classes of Federal
    employees under the Federal Pay Comparability Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-656;
    84 Stat. 1946).

    Sec. 89a. Speaker's ``pay orders.''

      Under  section 311(d) of
    the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1988 [2 U.S.C. 60a-2a], the
    Speaker may issue ``pay orders'' that adjust pay levels for officers and
    employees of the House to maintain certain relationships with comparable
    levels in the Senate and in the other branches of government. For the
    text of section 311(d), see Sec. 1130, infra.

    Sec. 90. Privilege of Members from
    arrest.

      * * * They [the  Senators and Representatives] shall in all Cases, except
    Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest
    during their attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and
    in going to and returning from the same; * * *

    [[Page 44]]

    where a person assaulted a Member on his way to the House, although at a
    place distant therefrom, the House arrested him on warrant of the
    Speaker, arraigned him at the bar and committed him (II, 1626, 1628).
    Other assaults under these circumstances have been treated as breaches
    of privilege (II, 1645). Where a Member had been arrested and detained
    under mesne process in a civil suit during a recess of Congress, the
    House decided that he was entitled to discharge on the assembling of
    Congress, and liberated him and restored him to his seat by the hands of
    its own officer (III, 2676). Service of process is distinguished from
    arrest in civil cases and related historical data are collected in Long
    v. Ansell, 293 U.S. 76 (1934), where the Supreme Court held that the
    clause was applicable only to arrests in civil suits, now largely
    obsolete but common at the time of the adoption of the United States
    Constitution. Former Rule L (current rule VIII), infra, was added in the
    97th Congress to provide a standing procedure governing subpoenas to
    Members, officers, and employees directing their appearance as witnesses
    relating to the official functions of the House, or for the production
    of House documents.

    <>   * * * and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they
    [the Senators and Representatives] shall not be questioned in any other
    place.

    Sec. 91. Assertions of privilege of
    Members by the House.

      The word ``felony''  in this provision has been interpreted not to
    refer to a delinquency in a matter of debt (III, 2676), and ``treason,
    felony, and breach of the peace'' have been construed to mean all
    indictable crimes (III, 2673). The Supreme Court has held that the
    privilege does not apply to arrest in any criminal case. Williamson v.
    United States, 207 U.S. 425 (1908). The courts have discussed and
    sustained the privilege of the Member in going to and returning from the
    session (III, 2674); and

    [[Page 45]]

    erative process of the Senate. Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111
    (1979). A complaint against an officer of the House relating to the
    dismissal of an official reporter of debates has been held
    nonjusticiable on the basis that her duties were directly related to the
    due functioning of the legislative process. Browning v. Clerk, 789 F.2d
    923 (D.C. Cir. 1986), cert. den. 479 U.S. 996 (1986). For a discussion
    of waivers of the Speech and Debate clause, see Sec. 301, infra.

    Sec. 93. Scope of the privilege.

      This privilege as  to ``any
    speech or debate'' applies generally to ``things done in a session of
    the House by one of its Members in relation to the business before it.''
    Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168 (1881), cited at III, 2675. See also
    II, 1655 and Sec. Sec. 301-302, infra, for provisions in Jefferson's
    Manual on the privilege; and Deschler, ch. 7. The clause precludes
    judicial inquiry into the motivation, preparation, or content of a
    Member's speech on the floor and prevents such a speech from being made
    the basis for a criminal conspiracy charge against the Member. United
    States v. Johnson, 383 U.S. 169 (1966). The Supreme Court held in United
    States v. Helstoski, 442 U.S. 447 (1979), that under the Speech or
    Debate Clause, neither evidence of nor references to legislative acts of
    a Member of Congress may be introduced by the Government in a
    prosecution under the official bribery statute. But the Supreme Court
    has limited the scope of legislative activity which is protected under
    the clause by upholding grand jury inquiry into the possession and
    nonlegislative use of classified documents by a Member. Gravel v. United
    States, 408 U.S. 606 (1972). The Court has also sustained the validity
    of an indictment of a Member for accepting an illegal bribe to perform
    legislative acts where the prosecution established a prima facie case
    without relying on the Member's constitutionally-protected legislative
    speech. United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501 (1972). Nor does the
    clause protect transmittal of allegedly defamatory material issued in
    press releases and newsletters by a Senator, as neither was essential to
    the delib

      Legislative employees acting under orders of the House are not
    necessarily protected under the clause from judicial inquiry into the
    constitutionality of their actions. Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 165
    (1880); Dombrowski v. Eastland, 387 U.S. 82 (1967); Powell v. McCormack,
    395 U.S. 486 (1969). But see Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606
    (1972), where the Supreme Court held that the aide of a Senator was
    protected under the clause when performing legislative acts which would
    have been protected under the clause if performed by the Senator
    himself. There is no distinction between the Members of a Senate
    subcommittee and its chief counsel insofar as complete immunity under
    the Speech and Debate Clause is provided for the issuance of a subpoena
    pursuant to legitimate legislative inquiry. Eastland v. U.S.
    Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 491 (1975). See also Doe v. McMillan, 412
    U.S. 306 (1973) (relating to the dissemination of a congressional
    report) for the immunity under this clause of Members of the House and
    their staffs, and for the common-law immunity of the Public Printer and
    Superintendent of Documents.

      For Federal court decisions on the applicability of the clause to
    unofficial circulation of reprints from the Congressional Record, see
    McGovern v. Martz, 182 F. Supp. 343 (1960); Long v. Ansell, 69 F.2d 386
    (1934), aff'd, 293 U.S. 76 (1934); Methodist Federation for Social
    Action v. Eastland, 141 F. Supp. 729 (1956). For inquiry into a Member's
    use of the franking privilege, see Hoellen v. Annunzio, 468 F.2d 522
    (1972), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 953 (1973); Schiaffo v. Helstoski, 350 F.
    Supp. 1076 (1972), rev'd 492 F.2d 413 (1974). For inquiry into the
    printing of committee reports, see Doe v. McMillan, 412 U.S. 306 (1973);
    Hentoff v. Ichord, 318 F. Supp. 1175 (1970).

    [[Page 46]]

    asking properly and without menace if the speech was correctly reported,
    was held to involve no question of privilege (III, 2682). Unless it be
    clear that a Member has been questioned for words spoken in debate, the
    House declines to act (II, 1620; III, 2680).

    Sec. 94. Action by the House.

      For assaulting a  Member for
    words spoken in debate, Samuel Houston, not a Member, was arrested,
    tried, and censured by the House (II, 1616-1619). Where Members have
    assaulted other Members for words spoken in debate (II, 1656), or
    proceeded by duel (II, 1644), or demanded explanation in a hostile
    manner (II, 1644), the House has considered the cases as of privilege. A
    communication addressed to the House by an official in an Executive
    Department calling in question words uttered by a Member in debate was
    criticized as a breach of privilege and withdrawn (III, 2684). An
    explanation having been demanded of a Member by a person not a Member
    for a question asked of the latter when a witness before the House, the
    matter was considered but not pressed as a breach of privilege (III,
    2681). A letter from a person supposed to have been assailed by a Member
    in debate,

      For assaulting a Member, Charles C. Glover was arrested, arraigned at
    the bar of the House, and censured by the Speaker by direction of the
    House, although the provocation of the assault was words spoken in
    debate in the previous Congress (VI, 333).

    Sec. 95. Decisions of the Court.

      Decisions  of the Supreme
    Court of the United States: Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168 (1881);
    Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367 (1951); United States v. Johnson, 383
    U.S. 169 (1966); Dombrowski v. Eastland, 387 U.S. 82 (1967); Powell v.
    McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969); Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606
    (1972); United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501 (1972); United States v.
    Helstoski, 442 U.S. 477 (1979); Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111
    (1979).

    Sec. 96. Restriction on appointment of
    Members to office.

      \2\No Senator or  Representative shall, during the Time for which he
    was elected, be appointed to any Civil Office under the Authority of the
    United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof
    shall have been encreased during such time; *  *  *.

    <>
    *  *  * and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall
    be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

      In a few cases questions have arisen under this paragraph (I, 506,
    footnote; and see 42 Op. Att'y Gen. 36 (1969); see also Deschler, ch.
    7).

      The meaning of the word ``office'' as used in this paragraph has been
    discussed (I, 185, 417, 478, 493; II, 993; VI, 60, 64), as has also the
    general subject of incompatible offices (I, 563).

    [[Page 47]]

    multaneously other offices under the United States (VII, 2164). A Member
    of either House is eligible to appointment to any office not forbidden
    him by law, the duties of which are not incompatible with those of a
    Member (VI, 63) and the question as to whether a Member may be appointed
    to the Board of Managers of the Soldiers' Home and become local manager
    of one of the Homes, is a matter for the decision of Congress itself
    (VI, 63). The House has also distinguished between the performance of
    paid services for the Executive (I, 495), like temporary service as
    assistant United States attorney (II, 993), and the acceptance of an
    incompatible office. The House has declined to hold that a contractor
    under the Government is constitutionally disqualified to serve as a
    Member (I, 496). But the House, or its committees, have found
    disqualified a Member who was appointed a militia officer in the
    District of Columbia (I, 486) and in various States (VI, 60), and
    Members who have accepted commissions in the Army (I, 491, 492, 494).
    But the Judiciary Committee has expressed the opinion that persons on
    the retired list of the Army do not hold office under the United States
    in the constitutional sense (I, 494). A Member-elect has continued to
    act as governor of a State after the assembling of the Congress to which
    he was elected (I, 503), but the duties of a Member of the House and the
    Governor of a State are absolutely inconsistent and may not be
    simultaneously discharged by the same Member (VI, 65).-

    Sec. 98. As to what are incompatible
    offices.

      The Judiciary Committee  has concluded that members of commissions created by law to
    investigate and report, but having no legislative, executive, or
    judicial powers, and visitors to academies, regents, directors, and
    trustees of public institutions, appointed under the law by the Speaker,
    are not officers within the meaning of the Constitution (I, 493).
    Membership on joint committees created by the statute is not an office
    in the contemplation of the constitutional provision prohibiting Members
    of Congress from holding si

    Sec. 99. Appointment of Memberselect to
    offices under the United States.

      The House decided  that the status of a Member-elect was
    not affected by the constitutional requirement (I, 499), the theory
    being advanced that the status of the Member-elect is distinguished from
    the status of the Member who has qualified (I, 184). A Member-elect, who
    continued in an office after his election but resigned before taking his
    seat, was held entitled to the seat (I, 497, 498). However, when a
    Member-elect held an incompatible office after the meeting of Congress
    and his taking of the oath, he was held to have disqualified himself (I,
    492). In other words, the Member-elect may defer until the meeting of
    Congress and his taking of the oath, his choice between the seat and an
    incompatible office (I, 492). As early as 1874 the Attorney General
    opined that a Member-elect is not officially a Member of the House, and
    thus may hold any office until sworn (14 Op. Att'y Gen. 408 (1874)).

    [[Page 48]]

    Sec. 100. Relation of contestants to
    incompatible offices.

      The House has  manifestly leaned to the idea that a contestant
    holding an incompatible office need not make his election until the
    House has declared him entitled to the seat (I, 505). Although a
    contestant had accepted and held a State office in violation of the
    State constitution, if he were really elected a
    Congressman, the House did not treat his contest as abated (II, 1003).
    Where a Member had been appointed to an incompatible office a contestant
    not found to be elected was not admitted to fill the vacancy (I, 807).

    Sec. 101. Procedure of the House when
    incompatible offices are accepted.

      Where a Member  has accepted an incompatible
    office, the House has assumed or declared the seat vacant (I, 501, 502;
    VI, 65). In the cases of Baker and Yell, the Elections Committee
    concluded that the acceptance of a commission as an officer of
    volunteers in the national army vacated the seat of a Member (I, 488),
    and in another similar case the Member was held to have forfeited his
    right to a seat (I, 490). The House has seated a person bearing regular
    credentials on ascertaining that his predecessor in the same Congress
    had accepted a military office (I, 572). But usually the House by
    resolution formally declares the seat vacant (I, 488, 492). A Member-
    elect may defer until the meeting of Congress and his taking of the oath
    of office his choice between the seat and an incompatible office (I,
    492). But when he retains the incompatible office and does not qualify,
    a vacancy has been held to exist (I, 500). A resolution excluding a
    Member who has accepted an incompatible office may be agreed to by a
    majority vote (I, 490). A Member charged with acceptance of an
    incompatible office was heard in his own behalf during the debate (I,
    486).

      Where it was held in Federal court that a Member of Congress may not
    hold a commission in the Armed Forces Reserve under this clause, the
    U.S. Supreme Court reversed on other grounds, the plaintiff's lack of
    standing to maintain the suit. Reservists Committee to Stop the War v.
    Laird, 323 F. Supp. 833 (1971), aff'd, 595 F.2d 1075 (1972), rev'd on
    other grounds, 418 U.S. 208 (1974).

    Sec. 102. Bills raising revenue to
    originate in the House.

      Section 7. \1\All Bills  for raising Revenue shall originate in the
    House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with
    Amendments as on other Bills.

    [[Page 49]]

    p. 23014; May 20, 1965, p. 11149; June 20, 1968, p. 22127; Nov. 8, 1979,
    p. 31518; May 17, 1983, p. 12486; Oct. 1, 1985, p. 25418; Sept. 25,
    1986, p. 26202; July 30, 1987, p. 21582; June 16, 1988, p. 14780; June
    21, 1988, p. 15425; Sept. 23, 1988, p. 25094; Sept. 28, 1988, p. 26415;
    Oct. 21, 1988, pp. 33110-11; June 15, 1989, p. 12167; Nov. 9, 1989, p.
    28271; Oct. 22, 1991, p. 27087; Oct. 31, 1991, p. 29284; Feb. 25, 1992,
    p. 3377; July 14, 1994, p. 16593; July 21, 1994, p. 17280;
    July 21, 1994, p. 17281; Aug. 12, 1994, pp. 7642, 7643; Oct. 7, 1994, p.
    29136, 29137; Mar. 21, 1996, p. 5950; Apr. 16, 1996, pp.
    7642, 7643; Sept. 27, 1996, p. 25542; Sept. 28, 1996, p. 25931; Mar. 5,
    1998, p. ----; Oct. 15, 1998, p. ----; July 15, 1999, p. ----; Nov. 18,
    1999, pp. ----; Oct. 24, 2000, p. ----; Sept. 20, 2001, p. ----
    ), or declined to proceed further with it (II, 1485).
    Among the measures the House has returned to the Senate: a
    Senate-passed bill providing for the sale of Conrail and containing
    provisions relating to the tax treatment of the sale, notwithstanding
    inclusion in that bill of a disclaimer section requiring all revenue
    provisions therein to be contained in separate legislation originating
    in the House (Sept. 25, 1986, p. 26202); a Senate-passed bill
    prohibiting the importation of commodities subject to tariff (July 30,
    1987, p. 21582); a Senate-passed bill banning all imports from Iran, a
    tariff measure as affecting revenue from dutiable imports (June 16,
    1988, p. 14780); a Senate-passed bill dealing with the tax treatment of
    income derived from the exercise of Indian treaty fishing rights (June
    21, 1988, p. 15425); a Senate-passed bill creating a tax-exempt
    government corporation (June 15, 1989, p. 12167); a Senate-passed bill
    addressing the tax treatment of police-corps scholarships and the
    regulation of firearms under the Internal Revenue Code (Oct. 22, 1991,
    p. 27087); a Senate-passed bill including certain import sanctions in an
    export administration statute (Oct. 31, 1991, p. 29284); a Senate-passed
    bill requiring the President to impose sanctions including import
    restrictions against countries that fail to eliminate largescale
    driftnet fishing (Feb. 25, 1992, p. 3377); a Senate amendment to
    a general appropriation bill prohibiting funds for the Internal Revenue
    Service to enforce a requirement to use undyed diesel fuel for use in
    recreational boats (July 14, 1994, p. 16593); a Senate-passed
    bill proposing to regulate toxic substances by prohibiting the import of
    products containing more than specified level of lead (July 21, 1994, p.
    17280); a Senate amendment to a general appropriation bill proposing a
    user fee raising revenue to finance broader activities of the agency
    imposing the levy, thereby raising general revenue (Aug. 12, 1994, p.
    21656); a Senate-passed bill proposing to repeal a fee on electricity
    generated by nuclear energy that otherwise would raise revenue (Mar. 5,
    1998, p. ----); a Senate-passed bill proposing new import restrictions
    on products containing any substance derived from rhinoceroses or tigers
    (Oct. 15, 1998, p. ----); Senate-passed bills proposing an amendment to
    the criminal code that would make it unlawful to import certain assault
    weapons (Oct. 22, 1991, p. 27087) or to import large capacity ammunition
    feeding devices (July 15, 1999, p. ----); Senate-passed bills
    prescribing the tax treatment

    [[Page 50]]

    of certain benefits to members of the Armed Forces (Nov. 18, 1999, p. --
    --) or of public-sector retirement plans (Nov. 18, 1999, p. ----); a
    Senate-passed bill proposing to create a new basis for applying import
    restrictions on bear viscera or products derived therefrom (Oct. 24,
    2000, p. ----); a Senate amendment proposing to enact by
    reference a Senate bill providing for a ban on (dutiable) imports of
    diamonds from certain countries (Sept. 20, 2001, p. ----). The
    House laid on the table a resolution asserting that a conference report
    (on which the House was acting first) accompanying a House
    bill originated provisions in derogation of the constitutional
    prerogative of the House and resolving that such bill be recommitted to
    conference (July 27, 2000, p. ----).
      This provision has been the subject of much discussion (II, 1488,
    1494). In the earlier days the practice was not always correct (II,
    1484); but in later years the House has insisted on its prerogative and
    the Senate has often shown reluctance to infringe thereon (II, 1482,
    1483, 1493). In several instances, however, the subject has been matter
    of contention, conference (II, 1487, 1488), and final disagreement (II,
    1485, 1487, 1488). Sometimes, however, when the House has questioned an
    invasion of prerogative, the Senate has receded (II, 1486,
    1493). The disagreements have been especially vigorous over the right of
    the Senate to concur with amendments (II, 1489), and while the Senate
    has acquiesced in the sole right of the House to originate revenue
    bills, it has at the same time held to a broad power of amendment (II,
    1497-1499). The House has frequently challenged the Senate on this point
    (II, 1481, 1491, 1496; Sept. 14, 1965, p. 23632). When the House has
    perceived an invasion of its prerogative, it has ordered
    the bill or Senate amendment to be returned to the Senate (II, 1480-
    1499; VI, 315, 317; Mar. 30, 1937, p. 2930; July 2, 1960, p. 15818; Oct.
    10, 1962,

      A bill raising revenue incidentally was held not to infringe
    upon the constitutional prerogative of the House to originate revenue
    legislation (VI, 315). Discussion of differentiation between bills for
    the purpose of raising revenue and bills which incidentally raise
    revenue (VI, 315). A question relating to the invasion of the
    constitutional prerogatives of the House by a Senate amendment may be
    raised at any time when the House is in possession of the papers, but
    not otherwise; thus, the question has been presented pending the motion
    to call up a conference report on the bill (June 20, 1968, Deschler, ch.
    13, Sec. 14.2; Aug. 19, 1982, p. 22127), but has been held nonprivileged
    with respect to a bill already presented to the President (Apr. 6, 1995,
    p. 10700). On January 16, 1924, p. 1027, the Senate decided that a bill
    proposing a gasoline tax in the District of Columbia should not
    originate in the Senate (VI, 316).

      Former clause 5(b) (current clause 5(a)) of rule XXI, added in the
    98th Congress, prohibits consideration of any amendment, including any
    Senate amendment, proposing a tax or tariff measure during consideration
    of a bill or joint resolution reported by a committee not having that
    jurisdiction (H. Res. 5, Jan. 3, 1983, p. 34).

      For discussion as to the prerogatives of the House under this clause,
    and discussion of the prerogatives of the House to originate
    appropriation bills, see Deschler, ch. 13.

    Sec. 103. Decisions of the Court.

      Decisions  of the Supreme
    Court of the United States: Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649 (1892); Twin
    City Bank v. Nebeker, 167 U.S. 196 (1897); Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220
    U.S. 107 (1911); Millard v. Roberts, 202 U.S. 429 (1906); Rainey v.
    United States, 232 U.S. 310 (1914); United States v. Munoz-Flores, 495
    U.S. 385 (1990).

    [[Page 51]]

    tions to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter
    the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it.
    If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to
    pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the
    other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved
    by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such
    Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and
    the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be
    entered on the Journal of each House respectively. * * *.

    Sec. 104. Approval and disapproval of bills by
    the President.

      \2\Every Bill  which shall have passed the House of Representatives
    and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the
    President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if
    not he shall return it, with his Objec

    [[Page 52]]

    exposition of his reasons for signing it was examined and severely
    criticized by a committee of the House (IV, 3492); and in 1842 a
    committee of the House discussed the act of President Jackson in writing
    above his signature of approval a memorandum of his construction of the
    bill (IV, 3492). But where the President has accompanied his message
    announcing the approval with a statement of his reasons there has been
    no question in the House (IV, 3491). The statutes require that bills
    signed by the President shall be received by the Archivist of the United
    States and deposited in his office (1 U.S.C. 106a). Formerly these bills
    were received by the Secretary of State (IV, 3485) and deposited in his
    office (IV, 3429).

    Sec. 105. The act of approval.

      Under the usual  practice,
    bills are considered to have been presented to the President at the time
    they are delivered to the White House. In 1959, bills delivered to the
    White House while the President was abroad were held for presentation to
    the President upon his return to the United States by the White House.
    The United States Court of Claims held, in Eber Bros. Wine and Liquor
    Corp. v. United States, 337 F.2d 624 (1964), cert. denied, 380 U.S. 950
    (1965), that where the President had determined, with the informal
    acquiescence of leaders of Congress, that bills from the Congress were
    to be received at the White House only for presentation to him upon his
    return to the United States and the bill delivered to the White House
    was so stamped, the Presidential veto of the bill more than 10 days
    after delivery to the White House but less than 10 days after his return
    to the country was timely. The second session of the 89th Congress
    adjourned sine die while President Johnson was on an Asian tour and
    receipts for bills delivered to the White House during that time were
    marked in like manner. The approval of a bill by the President of the
    United States is valid only with his signature (IV, 3490). Prior to the
    adoption of the 20th amendment to the Constitution, at the close of a
    Congress, when the two Houses prolonged their sessions into the forenoon
    of March 4, the approvals were dated on the prior legislative day, as
    the legislative portion of March 4 belonged to the term of the new
    Congress. In one instance, however, bills signed on the forenoon of
    March 4 were dated as of that day with the hour and minute of approval
    given with the date (IV, 3489). The 20th amendment to the Constitution
    changed the date of meeting of the Congress to January 3d. The act of
    President Tyler in filing with a bill an

    Sec. 106. Notice of approval sent by
    message.

      Notice of the  signature of a bill by the President is sent by message to
    the House in which it originated (VII, 1089) and that House informs the
    other (IV, 3429). But this notice is not necessary to the validity of
    the act (IV, 3495). Sometimes, at the close of a Congress the President
    informs the House of such bills as he has approved and of such as he has
    allowed to fail (IV, 3499-3502). In one instance he communicated his
    omission to sign a bill through the committee appointed to notify him
    that Congress was about to adjourn (IV, 3504). A bill that had not
    actually passed having been signed by the President, he disregarded it
    and a new bill was passed (IV, 3498). Messages of the President giving
    notice of bills approved are entered in the Journal and published in the
    Congressional Record (V, 6593).

    Sec. 107. Disapproval (or veto) of
    bills.

      A message withholding  approval of a bill, called a veto message, is sent to the House
    in which the bill originated; but it has been held that such a message
    may not be returned to the President on his request after it has been
    laid before the Senate (IV, 3521). Instance where a veto message which
    had not been laid before the House was returned to the President on his
    request (Aug. 1, 1946, p. 10651). A vetoed bill received in the House by
    way of the Senate is considered as if received directly from the
    President and supersedes the regular order of business (IV, 3537; VII,
    1109). A veto message may not be read in the absence of a quorum, even
    though the House be about to adjourn sine die (IV, 3522; VII, 1094); but
    the message may be read and acted on at the next session of the same
    Congress (IV, 3522). When the President has been prevented by
    adjournment from returning a bill with his objections he has sometimes
    at the next session communicated his reasons for not approving (V, 6618-
    6620).

    [[Page 53]]

      Although the ordinary form of a return veto is a message under seal
    returning the enrollment with a statement of the President's objections,
    an enrolled House bill returned to the Clerk during the August recess
    with a ``memorandum of disapproval'' setting forth the objections of the
    President was considered as a return veto (Sept. 11, 1991, p. 22643).

    Sec. 108. Consideration of a
    vetoed bill in the House.

      It is possible,  although not
    invariable, that a bill returned with the objections of
    the President shall be voted on at once (IV, 3534-3536) and when laid
    before the House the question on the passage is considered as pending
    and no motion from the floor is required (VII, 1097-1099), but it has
    been held that the constitutional mandate that ``the House shall proceed
    to consider'' means that the House shall immediately proceed to consider
    it under the Rules of the House, such that the ordinary motions under
    the Rules of the House (e.g., to refer or to postpone to a day certain)
    are in order (IV, 3542-3550; VII, 1100, 1105, 1113; Speaker Wright, Aug.
    3, 1988, p. 20280) and (for the stated examples) debatable under the
    hour rule (VIII, 2740). Although under clause 4 of rule XVI, and under
    the precedents the motion for the previous question takes precedence
    over motions to postpone or to refer when a question is under debate,
    where the Speaker has laid before the House a veto message from the
    President but has not yet stated the question to be on overriding the
    veto, that question is not ``under debate'' and the motion for the
    previous question does not take precedence (Speaker Wright, Aug. 3,
    1988; Procedure, ch. 24, Sec. 15.8). A resolution
    asserting that to recognize for a motion to refer a veto message before
    stating the question on overriding the veto would interfere with the
    constitutional prerogative of the House to proceed to that question, and
    directing the Speaker to state the question on overriding the veto as
    pending before recognizing for a motion to refer, did not give rise to a
    question of the privileges of the House (Speaker Wright, Aug. 3, 1988,
    p. 20281). A motion to refer a vetoed bill, either with or without the
    message, has been held allowable within the constitutional mandate that
    the House ``shall proceed to reconsider'' (IV, 3550; VII, 1104, 1105,
    1108, 1114), and in the 101st Congress, a veto pending as unfinished
    business was referred with instructions to consider and report promptly
    (Jan. 24, 1990, p. 421). But while the ordinary motion to refer may be
    applied to a vetoed bill, it is not in order to move to recommit it
    pending the demand for the previous question or after it is ordered (IV,
    3551; VII, 1102). When a veto message is before the House for
    consideration de novo or as unfinished business, a motion to refer the
    message to committee takes precedence over the question of passing the
    bill, the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding
    (Procedure, ch. 24, Sec. 15.8; Oct. 25, 1983, p. 29188),
    but the motion to refer may be laid on the table (Oct. 25, 1983, p.
    29188). A vetoed bill having been rejected by the House, the message was
    referred (IV, 3552; VII, 1103). Committees to which vetoed bills have
    been referred have sometimes neglected to report (IV, 3523, 3550,
    footnotes; VII, 1108, 1114).

    [[Page 54]]

    (Mar. 7, 1990, p. 3620) but is subject to the motion to lay on the table
    (Sept. 7, 1965, p. 22958; Aug. 4, 1988, p. 20365). When the motion to
    discharge is agreed to, the veto message is pending as unfinished
    business (Mar. 7, 1990, p. 3621). While a vetoed bill is always
    privileged, the same is not true of a bill reported in lieu of it (IV,
    3531; VII, 1103).
      A vetoed bill may be laid on the table (IV, 3549; VII, 1105), but it
    is still highly privileged and a motion to take it from the table is in
    order at any time (IV, 3550; V, 5439). Also a motion to discharge a
    committee from the consideration of such a bill is privileged (IV, 3532;
    Aug. 4, 1988, p. 20365; Sept. 19, 1996, p. 23815) and (in the modern
    practice) is debatable

    Sec. 109. Action on a vetoed bill.

      If two-thirds of  the
    House to which a bill is returned with the President's objections agree
    to pass it, and then two-thirds of the other House also agree, it
    becomes a law (IV, 3520). The yeas and nays are required to pass a bill
    over the President's veto (art. I, sec. 7; IV, 2726, 3520; VII, 1110).
    The two-thirds vote required to pass the bill is two-thirds of the
    Members present and voting and not two-thirds of the total membership of
    the House (IV, 3537, 3538; Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Kansas, 248 U.S. 276
    (1919)). Only Members voting should be considered in determining whether
    two-thirds voted in the affirmative (VII, 1111). The motion to
    reconsider may not be applied to the vote on reconsideration of a bill
    returned with the objections of the President (V, 5644; VIII, 2778).

      It is the practice for one House to inform the other by message of its
    decision that a bill returned with the objections of the President shall
    not pass (IV, 3539-3541). A bill passed notwithstanding the objections
    of the President is sent by the presiding officer of the House which
    last acts on it to the Archivist, who receives it and deposits it in his
    office (1 U.S.C. 106a). Formerly these bills were sent to the Secretary
    of State (IV, 3524) and deposited in his office (IV, 3485).

    [[Page 55]]

    For a discussion of the operation of the Act during the period of its
    effectiveness, see Sec. 1130, infra.

    Sec. 110. Errors in bills sent to the
    President.

      A bill incorrectly  enrolled has been recalled from the President, who erased
    his signature (IV, 3506). Bills sent to the President but not yet signed
    by him are sometimes recalled by concurrent resolution of the two Houses
    (IV, 3507-3509; VII, 1091; Sept. 4, 1962, p. 18405; May 6, 1974, p.
    13076), and amended; but this proceeding is regarded as irregular (IV,
    3510-3518). When the two Houses of Congress request the President by
    concurrent resolution to return an enrolled bill delivered to him and
    the President honors the request, the ten-day period under this clause
    runs anew from the time the bill is re-enrolled and is again presented
    to the President. Thus, in the 93d Congress the President returned on
    May 7, 1974 a bill pursuant to the request of Congress (H. Con. Res.
    485, May 6, 1974, p. 13076). The bill was again enrolled, presented to
    the President on May 7, and marked ``received May 7'' at the White
    House. An error in an enrolled bill that has gone to the President may
    also be corrected by a joint resolution (IV, 3519; VII, 1092). In the
    99th Congress, two enrollments of a continuing appropriation bill for FY
    1987 were presented to and signed by the President, the second
    correcting an omission in the first (see P.L. 99-500 and 99-591). In
    Clinton v.  City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998), the Supreme Court
    held that the cancellation procedures of the Line Item Veto Act violated
    the presentment clause of article I, section 7 of the Constitution.

    Sec. 110a. Decisions of the Court.

      Decisions  of the Supreme
    Court of the United States: Matthews v. Zane, 20 U.S. (7 Wheat.) 164
    (1822); Gardner v. Collector, 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 499 (1868); Lapeyre v.
    United States, 84 U.S. (17 Wall.) 191 (1873); La Abra Silver Mining Co.
    v. United States, 175 U.S. 423 (1899); Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v.
    Kansas, 248 U.S. 276 (1919); Edwards v. United States, 286 U.S. 482
    (1932); Wright v. United States, 302 U.S. 583 (1938); Clinton v. City of
    New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998).

    Sec. 111. Bills which become laws without the
    President's approval.

      * * * If any  Bill shall not be returned by the President
    within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to
    him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it,
    unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which
    Case it shall not be a Law.

      A bill signed by the President within 10 days (Sunday excepted) after
    it has been presented to him becomes a law even though such signing
    takes place when Congress is not in session, whether during the period
    of an adjournment to a day certain or after the final adjournment of a
    session. Presidents currently sign bills after sine die adjournment but
    within 10 days after their receipt. President Truman signed several
    bills passed in the 81st Congress after the convening of the 82d
    Congress but within 10 days (P.L. 910-921; 64 Stat. 1221-1257); and
    President Reagan approved bills passed in the 97th Congress which were
    presented after the convening of the 98th Congress. It was formerly
    contended that the President might not approve bills during a recess
    (IV, 3493, 3494), and in one instance, in 1864, when the President
    signed a bill after final adjournment of Congress but within 10 days
    grave doubts were raised and an adverse report was made by a House
    committee (IV, 3497). Later opinions of the Attorney General have been
    to the effect that the President has the power to approve bills within
    10 days after they have been presented to him during the period of an
    adjournment to a day certain (IV, 3496) and after an adjournment sine
    die (VII, 1088). The Supreme Court has held valid as laws bills signed
    by the President within 10 days during a recess for a specified time (La
    Abra Silver Mining Co. v. United States, 175 U.S. 451 (1899); IV, 3495)
    and also those signed after an adjournment sine die (Edwards v. United
    States, 286 U.S. 482 (1932)).

    [[Page 56]]

    nor returned by him to the House in which it originated, does not become
    a law (``The Pocket Veto Case,'' 279 U.S. 655 (1929); VII, 1115).
    President Truman during an adjournment to a day certain pocket vetoed
    several bills passed by the 81st Congress and also, after the convening
    of the 82d Congress, pocket vetoed one bill passed in the 81st Congress.
    The Supreme Court has held that the adjournment of the House of origin
    for not exceeding three days while the other branch of the Congress
    remained in session, did not prevent a return of the vetoed bill to the
    House of origin (Wright v. United States, 302 U.S. 583 (1938)).

    Sec. 112. The pocket veto.

      A bill which  is passed by both
    Houses of Congress during the first regular session of a Congress and
    presented to the President less than 10 days (Sundays excepted) before
    the sine die adjournment of that session, but is neither signed by the
    President,

    Sec. 113. Effect of adjournment to a day
    certain.

      Doubt has existed  as to whether a bill which remains with the President 10 days
    without his signature, Congress meanwhile before the tenth day having
    adjourned to a day certain, becomes a law (IV, 3483, 3496; VII, 1115);
    an opinion of the Attorney General in 1943 stated that under such
    circumstances a bill not signed by the President did not become a law
    (40 Op. Att'y Gen. 274 (1943)). However, more recently, where a Member
    of the Senate challenged in Federal court the effectiveness of such a
    pocket veto, a United States Court of Appeals held that a Senate bill
    could not be pocket-vetoed by the President during an ``intrasession''
    adjournment of Congress to a day certain for more than three days, where
    the Secretary of the Senate had been authorized to receive Presidential
    messages during such adjournment. Kennedy v. Sampson, 511 F.2d 430 (D.C.
    Cir., 1974). See also Kennedy v. Jones, 412 F. Supp. 353 (D.D.C. 1976).
    Following a consent decree in this case, it was announced that President
    Ford would utilize a ``return'' veto, subject to override, in
    intersession and intrasession adjournments where authority exists for
    the appropriate House to receive such messages notwithstanding the
    adjournment.

    [[Page 57]]

      In the 101st Congress, when President Bush returned an enrolled bill
    during the intersession adjournment, not by way of message under seal
    but with a ``memorandum of disapproval'' setting forth his objections,
    the House treated it as a return veto subject to override under article
    I, section 7 (Jan. 23, 1990, p. 4). Similarly, in the 102d Congress, an
    enrolled House bill returned to the Clerk during the August recess, not
    by way of message under seal but with a ``memorandum of disapproval''
    setting forth the objections of the President, was considered as a
    return veto (Sept. 11, 1991, p. 22643). Also in the 102d Congress,
    President Bush purported on December 20, 1991, to pocket veto a bill (S.
    1176) that was presented to him on December 9, 1991, notwithstanding
    that the Congress was in an intrasession adjournment (from Nov. 27,
    1991, until 11:55 a.m., Jan. 3, 1992) rather than an adjournment sine
    die (see Jan. 23, 1992 [Daily Digest]); and during debate on a
    subsequent bill (S. 2184) purporting to repeal the provisions of S. 1176
    and to enact instead provisions acceding to the objections of the
    President, the Speaker inserted remarks on the pocket veto in light of
    modern congressional practice concerning the receipt of messages and
    communications during recesses and adjournments (Mar. 3, 1992, p. 4081).

      In the 93d Congress, the President returned a House bill without his
    signature to the Clerk of the House, who had been authorized to receive
    messages from the President during an adjournment to a day certain, and
    the President asserted in his veto message that he had ``pocket vetoed''
    the bill during the adjournment of the House to a day certain. The House
    regarded the President's return of the bill without his signature as a
    veto within the meaning of article I, section 7 of the Constitution and
    proceeded to reconsider and to pass the bill over the President's veto,
    after postponing consideration to a subsequent day (motion to postpone,
    Nov. 18, 1974, p. 36246; veto override, Nov. 20, 1974, p. 36621).
    Subsequently, on November 21, 1974, the Senate also voted to override
    the veto (p. 36882) and pursuant to 1 U.S.C. 106a the Enrolling Clerk of
    the Senate forwarded the bill to the Archives for publication as a
    public law. The Administrator of General Services at the Archives (now
    Archivist), upon instructions from the Department of Justice, declined
    to promulgate the bill as public law on the day received. The question
    as to the efficacy of the congressional action in passing the bill over
    the President's veto was mooted when the House and Senate passed on
    November 26, 1974 (pp. 37406, 37603), an identical bill which was signed
    into law on December 7, 1974 (P.L. 93-516). On similar occasions, when
    the President has asserted a ``pocket veto,'' the House has regarded the
    President's actual return of the bill without his signature as a veto
    within the meaning of article I, section 7 of the Constitution and
    proceeded to reconsider the bill over the President's
    objections (Jan. 23, 1990, p. 3; Sept. 6, 2000, p. ----;
    Nov. 13, 2000, p. ----).

      As part of the concurrent resolution providing for the sine die
    adjournments of the first sessions of the 101st Congress and 105th
    Congress, the Congress reaffirmed its position that an intersession
    adjournment did not prevent the return of a bill where the Clerk and the
    Secretary of the Senate were authorized to receive messages during the
    adjournment (H. Con. Res. 239, Nov. 21, 1989, p. 31156; S. Con. Res. 68,
    Nov. 13, 1997, p. ----). For the views of the Speaker, the Minority
    Leader, and the Attorney General concerning pocket veto authority during
    an intrasession adjournment, see correspondence inserted in the
    Congressional Record (Jan. 23, 1990, p. 3; Sept. 19, 2000, p. ----; Nov.
    13, 2000, p. ----); and for discussions of the constitutionality of
    intersession or intrasession pocket vetoes see Kennedy, ``Congress, The
    President, and The Pocket Veto,'' 63 Va. L. Rev. 355 (1977), and
    Hearing, Subcommittee on Legislative Process, Committee on Rules, on
    H.R. 849, 101st Congress.

    [[Page 58]]

    Sec. 114. Decisions of the Court.

      Decisions  of the Supreme
    Court of the United States: La Abra Silver Mining Co. v. United States,
    175 U.S. 423 (1899); Wilkes County v. Coler, 180 U.S. 506 (1901); the
    Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655 (1929); Edwards v. United States, 286
    U.S. 482 (1932); Wright v. United States, 302 U.S. 583 (1938); Burke v.
    Barnes, 479 U.S. 361 (1987) (vacating and remanding as moot the decision
    sub nom. Barnes v. Kline, 759 F.2d 21 (D.C. Cir. 1984)).

    Sec. 115. As to presentation of orders and
    resolutions for approval.

      \3\Every Order,  Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence
    of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a
    question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the
    United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved
    by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of
    the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and
    Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

      It has been settled conclusively that a joint resolution proposing an
    amendment to the Constitution should not be presented to the President
    for his approval (V, 7040; Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.)
    378 (1798)). Such joint resolutions, after passage by both Houses, are
    presented to the Archivist (1 U.S.C. 106b). Although the requirement of
    the Constitution seems specific, the practice of Congress has been to
    present to the President for approval only such concurrent resolutions
    as are legislative in effect (IV, 3483, 3484) which is not within the
    scope of the modern form of concurrent resolutions. See Sec. 192, infra,
    for a discussion of Presidential approval of a joint resolution
    extending the period for State ratification of a constitutional
    amendment already submitted to the States. For discussion of
    ``Congressional Disapproval'' provisions contained in public laws, see
    Sec. 1130, infra.

    Sec. 116. Decisions of the Court.

      Decisions  of the Supreme
    Court of the United States: Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649 (1892); United
    States v. Ballin, 144 U.S. 1 (1892); Fourteen Diamond Rings v. United
    States, 183 U.S. 176 (1901); INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983); Process
    Gas Consumer's Group v. Consumer Energy Council of America 463 U.S. 1216
    (1983).

    [[Page 59]]

    <>   \2\To borrow Money on the
    credit of the United States:

    Sec. 117. The revenue power.

      Section 8. The Congress  shall
    have Power\1\ To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to
    pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of
    the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform
    throughout the United States;

    Sec. 119. Power over commerce.

      \3\To regulate  Commerce with
    foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian
    Tribes;

    Sec. 120. Naturalization and bankruptcy.

      \4\To establish  an
    uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of
    Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
    <>   \5\To coin Money,
    regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of
    Weights and Measures;

    Sec. 122. Counterfeiting.

      \6\To provide  for the Punishment
    of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;-
    -
    <>   \7\To establish Post
    Offices and Post Roads;

    [[Page 60]]

    Sec. 124. Patents and copyrights.

      \8\To promote  the Progress
    of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and
    Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and
    Discoveries;
    <>   \9\To constitute Tribunals
    inferior to the supreme Court;
    <>
    \10\To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high
    Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
    <>
    \11\To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules
    concerning Captures on Land and Water;

    Sec. 128. War powers of Congress and the
    President.

      In the 93d  Congress, the Congress passed over the President's veto
    Public Law 93-148, relating to the power of Congress to declare war
    under this clause and the power of the President as Commander in Chief
    under article II, section 2, clause 1 (Sec. 178, infra). The law
    requires that the President report to Congress on the introduction of
    United States Armed Forces in the absence of a declaration of war. The
    President must terminate use of the Armed Forces unless Congress, within
    60 calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be
    submitted, (1) declares war or authorizes use of the Armed Forces; (2)
    extends by law the 60-day period; or (3) is physically unable to meet as
    result of armed attack. The Act also provided that Congress could adopt
    a concurrent resolution requiring the removal of Armed Forces engaged in
    foreign hostilities, a provision which should be read in light of INS v.
    Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983). Sections 6 and 7 of the Act provide
    congressional procedures for joint resolutions, bills, and concurrent
    resolutions introduced pursuant to the provisions of the Act (see
    Sec. 1130, infra). For further discussion of that Act, and war powers
    generally, see Deschler, ch. 13.

    Sec. 129. Raising and support of armies.

      \12\To raise  and
    support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a
    longer Term than two Years;
    <>   \13\To provide and maintain
    a Navy;
    <>   \14\To make Rules for the
    Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

    Sec. 132. Calling out the militia.

      \15\To provide  for
    calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress
    Insurrections and repel Invasions;

    [[Page 61]]

    ing the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

    Sec. 133. Power over militia.

      \16\To provide  for organizing,
    arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of
    them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving
    to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the
    Authority of train

    Sec. 134. Power over territory of the United
    States.

      \17\To exercise  exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such
    District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of
    particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of
    the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over
    all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in
    which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals,
    dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

    -
    [[Page 62]]

    Sec. 135. Congressional authority over
    the District of Columbia.

      Congress has provided  by law that ``all that part of the territory
    of the United States included within the present limits of the District
    of Columbia shall be the permanent seat of government of the United
    States'' (4 U.S.C. 71). Pursuant to its authority under this clause,
    Congress provided in 1970 for the people of the District of Columbia to
    be represented in the House of Representatives by a Delegate and for a
    Commission to report to the Congress on the organization of the
    government of the District of Columbia (P.L. 91-405; 84 Stat. 845). For
    the powers and duties of the Delegate from the District of Columbia, see
    rule III (Sec. 675, infra) and Deschler, ch. 7, Sec. 3. In 1973,
    Congress passed the District of Columbia Self-Government and
    Governmental Reorganization Act, which reorganized the governmental
    structure of the District, provided a charter for local government
    subject to acceptance by a majority of the registered qualified voters
    of the District, delegated certain legislative powers to the District,
    and implemented certain recommendations of the Commission on the
    Organization of the Government of the District of Columbia (P.L. 93-198;
    87 Stat. 774). Section 604 of that Act provides for congressional action
    on certain district matters by providing a procedure for approval and
    disapproval of certain actions by the District of Columbia Council. The
    section, as amended by Public Law 98-473, permits a highly privileged
    motion to discharge a joint resolution of approval or disapproval which
    has not been reported by the committee to which referred within 20
    calendar days after its introduction (see Sec. 1130, infra).

    Sec. 136. General legislative power.

      \18\To make  all Laws
    which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the
    foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in
    the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer
    thereof.

    Sec. 137. Migration or importation of
    persons.

      Section 9. \1\The  Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States
    now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the
    Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a
    Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten
    dollars for each Person.

    Sec. 138. Writ of habeas corpus.

      \2\The Privilege of  the
    Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of
    Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
    <>   \3\No
    Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

    Sec. 140. Capitation and direct taxes.

      \4\[No Capitation,  or
    other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or
    Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.]

    Sec. 141. Export duties.

      This provision was changed in 1913 by the 16th amendment to the
    Constitution.
       \5\No Tax or Duty shall be laid on
    Articles exported from any State.

    [[Page 63]]

    State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

    Sec. 142. Freedom of commerce.

      \6\No Preference  shall be
    given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State
    over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one

    Sec. 143. Appropriations and accounting of public
    money.

      \7\No Money  shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of
    Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the
    Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from
    time to time.

    Sec. 144. Titles of nobility and gifts from
    foreign states.

      \8\No Title of  Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no
    Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without
    the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office,
    or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

    Sec. 145. Foreign gifts and
    decorations.

      Consent has been  granted to officers and employees of the government,
    under enumerated conditions, to accept certain gifts and decorations
    from foreign governments (see 5 U.S.C. 7342). The adoption of this act
    largely has obviated the practice of passing private bills to permit the
    officer or employee to retain the award. However, where the Speaker (who
    was one of the officers empowered by an earlier law to approve retention
    of decorations by Members of the House) was himself tendered an award
    from a foreign government, a private law (Private Law 91-244) was
    enacted to permit him to accept and wear the award so that he would not
    be in the position of reviewing his own application under the provisions
    of the law.

      Public Law 95-105 amended the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act (now 5
    U.S.C. 7342) to designate the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
    of the House of Representatives as the employing agency for the House
    with respect to foreign gifts and decorations received by Members and
    employees; under that statute the Committee may approve the acceptance
    of foreign decorations and has promulgated regulations to carry out the
    Act with respect to Members and employees (Jan. 23, 1978, p. 452), and
    disposes of foreign gifts which may not be retained by the donee.

      Opinions of Attorneys General:

    [[Page 64]]

      Gifts from Foreign Prince, 24 Op. Att'y Gen. 117 (1902); Foreign
    Diplomatic Commission, 13 Op. Att'y Gen. 538 (1871); Marshal of Florida,
    6 Op. Att'y Gen. 409 (1854).

    Sec. 146. States not to make treaties, coin
    money, pass ex post facto laws, impair contracts, etc.

      Section 10. \1\No  State shall
    enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of
    Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing
    but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of
    Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of
    Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

    Sec. 147. States not to lay imposts or
    duties.

      \2\No State  shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or
    Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary
    for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties
    and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the
    Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be
    subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

    Sec. 148. States not to lay tonnage taxes, make
    compacts, or go to war.

      \3\No State  shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay
    any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace,
    enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a
    foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such
    imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

                                   ARTICLE II.

    [[Page 65]]

    years, and together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term,
    be elected, as follows:

    Sec. 149. Terms of the President and Vice
    President.

      Section 1. \1\The  executive Power shall be vested in a President of the
    United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of
    four

    Sec. 150. Commencement of President's term of
    office.

      George  Washington took the oath of office, as the first President on
    April 30, 1789 (III, 1986). The two Houses of the First Congress found,
    after examination by a joint committee, that by provisions made in the
    Federal Constitution and by the Continental Congress, the term of the
    President had, notwithstanding begun on March 4, 1789 (I, 3). The 20th
    amendment, declared to have been ratified on February 6, 1933, provides
    that Presidential terms shall end and successor terms shall begin at
    noon on January 20. Thus, Franklin D. Roosevelt's first term began on
    March 4, 1933, but ended at noon on January 20, 1937. Formerly, when
    March 4 fell on Sunday, the public inauguration of the President
    occurred at noon on March 5 (III, 1996; VI, 449). Following ratification
    of the 20th amendment, the first time inauguration day fell on Sunday
    was January 20, 1957, and Dwight David Eisenhower took the oath for his
    second term in a private ceremony at the White House on that day
    followed by a public inauguration ceremony on the steps of the East
    Front of the Capitol on Monday, January 21, 1957. A similar scenario was
    followed at the beginning of President Reagan's second term, with the
    oath being given at the White House on January 20, 1985, followed by a
    public ceremony on Monday, January 21, in the Rotunda of the Capitol.
    The 22d amendment provides that no person shall be elected President
    more than twice.

    Sec. 151. Electors of President and Vice President and
    their qualifications.

      \2\Each  State shall appoint, in such Manner as the
    Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole
    Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be
    entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or Person
    holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be
    appointed an Elector.

    [[Page 66]]

    Sec. 152. Questions as to qualifications of
    electors.

      Questions  of the qualifications of electors have arisen, and in one
    instance certain ones were found disqualified, but as their number was
    not sufficient to affect the result and as there was doubt as to what
    tribunal should pass on the question the votes were counted (III, 1941).
    In other cases there were objections, but the votes were counted (III,
    1972-1974, 1979). In one instance an elector found to be disqualified
    resigned both offices, whereupon he was made eligible to fill the
    vacancy thus caused among electors (III, 1975).

    [[Page 67]]

    more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot
    the Vice-President.]

    Sec. 152a. Original provision for failure of electoral
    college to choose, superseded by 12th amendment.

      \3\[The  Electors shall meet
    in their respective States and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom
    one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with
    themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and
    of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify,
    and transmit sealed to the Seat of Government of the United States,
    directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate
    shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open
    all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person
    having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such
    Number be a majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed: and if
    there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number
    of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by
    Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then
    from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like manner
    chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be
    taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A
    quorum for this purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two
    thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be
    necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President,
    the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be
    the Vice President. But if there should remain two or

    <>   \4\The Congress may determine the Time of chusing
    the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which
    Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

      This third clause of article II, section 1 was superseded by the 12th
    amendment (see Sec. Sec. 219-223, infra).

      The time for choosing electors has been fixed on ``the Tuesday next
    after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year''; and the
    electors in each State ``meet and give in their votes on the first
    Monday after the second Wednesday in December next following their
    appointment, at such place in each State as the legislature of such
    State shall direct'' (III, 1914; VI, 438; 3 U.S.C. 1, 7). The statutes
    also provide for transmitting to the President of the Senate
    certificates of the appointment of the electors and of their votes (III,
    1915-1917; VI, 439; 3 U.S.C. 11).

    Sec. 154. Qualifications of President of the United
    States.

      \5\No  Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the
    United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall
    be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be
    eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty
    five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    [[Page 68]]

    as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the
    Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

    Sec. 155. Succession in case of removal, death,
    resignation, or disability of President and Vice President.

      \6\In  Case of
    the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation,
    or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the
    Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law
    provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both
    of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then
    act

    Sec. 156. Resignation of the President.

      Amendment  XXV
    provides for filling a vacancy in the Office of the Vice
    President and, when the President is unable to perform the duties of his
    office, for the Vice President to assume those powers and duties as
    Acting President. During the 93d Congress, President Richard M. Nixon
    resigned from office on August 9, 1974, by delivering a signed
    resignation to the Office of the Secretary of State,
    pursuant to 3 U.S.C. 20. Pursuant to amendment XXV, Vice President
    Gerald R. Ford became President and the House and Senate confirmed his
    nominee, Nelson A. Rockefeller, to become Vice President (December 19,
    1974, p. 41516).

      Congress has also provided for the performance of the duties of the
    President in case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of
    the President and Vice President (3 U.S.C. 19).

    Sec. 157. Compensation of President.

      \7\The  President shall,
    at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall
    neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall
    have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other
    Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

      The compensation of the President, formerly fixed at $200,000 per
    annum (3 U.S.C. 102), was increased to $400,000, effective January 20,
    2001 (P.L. 106-59). In addition the law provides an expense allowance of
    $50,000 (3 U.S.C. 102), and authorizes a travel allowance of not to
    exceed $100,000 (3 U.S.C. 103).

    [[Page 69]]

    Sec. 158. Oath of the President.

      \8\Before  he enter on the
    Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or
    Affirmation:--``I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully
    execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the
    best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the
    United States.''

    Sec. 159. Inauguration of the President.

      The  taking of this
    oath, which is termed the inauguration, is made the occasion of certain
    ceremonies which are arranged for by a joint committee of the two Houses
    (III, 1998, 1999; VI, 451). For many years the oath was normally taken
    at the east portico of the Capitol, although in earlier years it was
    taken in the Senate Chamber or Hall of the House (III, 1986-1995). On
    March 4, 1909, owing to inclemency of the weather, the President-elect
    took the oath and delivered his inaugural address in the Senate Chamber
    (VI, 447). And when Vice President Fillmore succeeded to the vacancy in
    the Office of President, Congress being in session, he
    took the oath in the Hall of the House in the presence of the Senate and
    House (III, 1997). In 1945 Franklin D. Roosevelt, who had been elected
    for his fourth term as President, took the oath of office on the south
    portico at the White House. On August 9, 1974, Gerald R. Ford, who as
    Vice President succeeded to the Presidency following the resignation of
    President Nixon on that day, was sworn in in the East Room of the White
    House. The West Front of the Capitol was first used for the inaugural
    ceremony for Ronald W. Reagan, Jan. 20, 1981. Because of extreme cold,
    the public administration of the oath was for the first time held in the
    Rotunda of the Capitol, rather than on the West Front, as scheduled, on
    January 21, 1985. Permission for such use is authorized by concurrent
    resolution (see, e.g., S. Con. Res. 144, 98th Cong. Oct. 9, 1984, p.
    30926).

    Sec. 160. The President the Commander in
    Chief.

      Section 2. \1\The  President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of
    the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called
    into the actual Service of the United States; he may require
    the <> Opinion,
    in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive
    Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their
    respective <> Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and
    Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of
    Impeachment.

    [[Page 70]]

    gress required and the procedure for congressional action provided under
    Public Law 93-148, see Sec. 128, supra.

    Sec. 163. War powers of Congress and the President.

      In  the
    93d Congress, the Congress passed over the President's veto Public Law
    93-148, relating to the power of Congress to declare war under article
    I, section 8, clause 11 (Sec. 127, supra) and the power of the President
    as Commander in Chief. For further discussion of the reports to Con

    Sec. 164. Pardon of former President.

      In  1974, President
    Ford exercised his power under the last phrase of this clause by
    pardoning former President Nixon for any crimes he might have committed
    during a certain period in office (Proclamation 4311, September 8,
    1974). The former President had resigned following an impeachment
    inquiry in the House and the decision of the Committee on the Judiciary
    to report to the House recommending his impeachment by the House (Aug.
    20, 1974, p. 29219).

    Sec. 165. President makes treaties.

      \2\He  shall have Power,
    by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties,
    provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall
    nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall
    appoint Ambassadors, <> other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme
    Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments
    are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by
    Law; but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior
    Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of
    Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

    [[Page 71]]

      The power of the President to appoint diplomatic representatives to
    foreign governments and to determine their rank is derived from the
    Constitution and may not be circumscribed by statutory enactments (VII,
    1248). In Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) the Supreme Court held
    that any appointee exercising significant authority (not merely internal
    delegable authorities within the legislative branch) pursuant to the
    laws of the United States is an Officer of the United States and must
    therefore be appointed pursuant to this clause, and that Congress cannot
    by law vest such appointment authority in its own officers or require
    that Presidential appointments be subject to confirmation by both
    Houses.

    Sec. 167. President's power to fill vacancies during
    recess of the Senate.

      \3\The  President shall have Power to fill up all
    Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting
    Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

    Sec. 168. Messages from the President.

      Section 3.  He shall
    from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the
    Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall
    judge necessary and expedient; * * *

      In the early years of the Government the President made a speech to
    Congress on its assembling (V, 6629), but in 1801 President Jefferson
    discontinued this practice and transmitted a message in writing. This
    precedent was followed until April 8, 1913, when the custom of
    addressing Congress in person was resumed by President Wilson and, with
    the exception of President Hoover (VIII, 3333) has been followed
    generally by subsequent Presidents. Only messages of major importance
    are delivered in person. A message in writing is usually communicated to
    both Houses on the same day, but an original document accompanying can
    of course be sent to but one House (V, 6616, 6617). The President's
    State of the Union message delivered in person to the 95th Congress,
    second Session, together with separate hand-delivered written messages,
    were referred on motion to the Union Calendar and ordered printed (Jan.
    19, 1978, p. 152). In early years confidential messages were often sent
    and considered in secret session of the House (V, 7251, 7252).

    Sec. 169. Messages required by law.

      By  law (31 U.S.C. 1105),
    the President is required to transmit the Budget to Congress on or after
    the first Monday in January but not later than the first Monday in
    February each year. In addition, he is required to submit a supplemental
    budget summary by July 16 each year (31 U.S.C. 1106). Submission of the
    Economic Report of the President is required within 10 days after the
    submission of the January budget (15 U.S.C. 1022). The Congressional
    Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 601) requires the
    transmittal to Congress by the President of amendments and revisions
    related to the budget on or before April 10 and July 15 of each year. In
    addition, the Act provides for the transmittal of messages proposing
    rescissions and deferrals of budget authority (2 U.S.C. 682).

    [[Page 72]]

    President pro tempore sits to the left of the Speaker (Nov. 27, 1963, p.
    22838). The Speaker presides.
      When the President has indicated that he will address Congress in
    person a concurrent resolution is adopted by both Houses arranging for a
    joint session to receive the message. At the appointed hour the Members
    of the Senate arrive. The President of the Senate (the Vice President)
    sits to the right of the Speaker, but in the absence of the Vice
    President, the

    Sec. 170. Reception of messages from the
    President.

      The  ceremony of receiving a message in writing is simple (V,
    6591), and may occur during consideration of a question of privilege (V,
    6640-6642) or before the organization of the House (V, 6647-6649) and in
    the absence of a quorum (V, 6650; VIII, 3339; clause 7 of rule XX).

    * * * <> he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both
    Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them,
    with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such
    Time as he shall think proper; * * *

      But, with the exception of vetoes, messages are regularly laid before
    the House only at the time prescribed by the rule for the order of
    business (V, 6635-6638) within the discretion of the Speaker (VIII,
    3341). While a message of the President is always read in full the
    latest rulings have not permitted the reading of the accompanying
    documents to be demanded as a matter of right (V, 5267-5271; VII, 1108).
    A concurrent resolution providing for a joint session to receive the
    President's message was held to be of the highest privilege (VIII,
    3335).

    * * * <> he shall receive Ambassadors and other
    public Ministers; he shall take Care That the Laws be faithfully
    executed, and shall Commission all the officers of the United States.

    [[Page 73]]

      In certain exigencies the President may convene Congress at a place
    other than the seat of government (I, 2; 2 U.S.C. 27). Congress has
    frequently been convened by the President (I, 10, 11; Nov. 17, 1947, p.
    10578; July 26, 1948, p. 9362), and in one instance, when Congress had
    provided by law for meeting, the President called it together on an
    earlier day (I, 12). The Congress having adjourned on July 27, 1947, p.
    10521, and on June 20, 1948, p. 9350, to a day certain, the President
    called it together on an earlier date than that to which it adjourned
    (Nov. 17, 1947, p. 10577; July 26, 1948, p. 9362). There has been some
    discussion as to whether or not there is a distinction between a session
    called by the President and other sessions of Congress (I, 12,
    footnote).

    Sec. 173. Impeachment of civil officers.

      Section 4.  The
    President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States,
    shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of,
    Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

    Sec. 174. As to the officers who may be impeached.

      In  the
    Blount trial the managers contended that all citizens of the United
    States were liable to impeachment, but this contention was not admitted
    (III, 2315), and in the Belknap trial both managers and counsel for
    respondent agreed that a private citizen, apart from offense in an
    office, might not be impeached (III, 2007). But resignation of the
    office, does not prevent impeachment for crime or misdemeanor therein
    (III, 2007, 2317, 2444, 2445, 2459, 2509). In Blount's case it was
    decided that a Senator was not a civil officer within the meaning of the
    impeachment provisions of the Constitution (III, 2310, 2316). Questions
    have also arisen as to whether or not the Congressional Printer (III,
    1785), or a vice consul-general (III, 2515), might be impeached.
    Proceedings for the impeachment of territorial judges have been taken in
    several instances (III, 2486, 2487, 2488), although various opinions
    have been given that such an officer is not impeachable (III, 2022,
    2486, 2493). A committee of the House by majority vote held a
    Commissioner of the District of Columbia not to be a civil officer
    subject to impeachment under the Constitution (VI, 548). An independent
    counsel appointed under 28 U.S.C. 593 may be impeached under 28 U.S.C.
    596(a), and a resolution impeaching such an independent counsel
    constitutes a question of the privileges of the House under rule IX
    (Sept. 23, 1998, p. ----).

    [[Page 74]]

    office, whether moral, intellectual, or physical (III, 2015), yet the
    House has impeached judges for improper personal habits (III, 2328,
    2505), and in the impeachment of the President one of the articles
    charged him with ``intemperate, inflammatory, and scandalous harangues''
    in public addresses, tending to the harm of the Government (III, 2420).
    There was no conviction under these charges except in the single case of
    Judge Pickering, who was charged with intoxication on the bench (III,
    2328-2341). As to the impeachment of judges for other delinquencies,
    there has been much contention as to whether they may be impeached for
    any breach of good behavior (III, 2011, 2016, 2497), or only for
    judicial misconduct occurring in the actual administration of justice in
    connection with the court (III, 2010, 2013, 2017). The intent of the
    judge (III, 2014, 2382) as related to mistakes of the law, and the
    relations of intent to conviction have been discussed at length (III,
    2014, 2381, 2382, 2518, 2519). The statutes make nonresidence of a judge
    an impeachable offense, and the House has taken steps to impeach for
    this cause (III, 2476, 2512). There has, however, been some question as
    to the power of Congress to make an impeachable offense (III, 2014,
    2015, 2021, 2512). Usurpation of power has been examined several times
    in its relations as a cause for impeachment (III, 2404, 2508, 2509,
    2516, 2517). There has also been discussion as to whether or not there
    is distinction between a misdemeanor and a high misdemeanor (III, 2270,
    2367, 2492). Review of impeachments in Congress showing the nature of
    charges upon which impeachments have been brought and judgments of the
    Senate thereon (VI, 466). The report accompanying a resolution to
    impeach President Clinton, and the debate in the House thereon, included
    discussion of the nature of an impeachable offense (H. Rept. 105-830;
    Dec. 18-19, 1998, pp. ----). Of the four articles of impeachment of
    President Clinton reported by the Committee on the Judiciary ((1)
    perjury in grand jury, (2) perjury in a civil deposition, (3)
    obstruction of justice, and (4) improper responses to written questions
    from the Committee on the Judiciary), only the first and third were
    adopted by the House (H. Res. 611, Dec. 19, 1998, p. ----). The
    President was acquitted by the Senate on each article (Feb. 12, 1999, p.
    ----).

    Sec. 175. Nature of impeachable offenses.

      As  to what are
    impeachable offenses there has been much discussion (III, 2008, 2019,
    2020, 2356, 2362, 2379-2381, 2405, 2406, 2410, 2498, 2510; VI, 455;
    Impeachment of Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States,
    Committee on the Judiciary, H. Rept. 93-1305, Aug. 20, 1974, p. 29219;
    Associate Justice William O. Douglas, Final Report by the Special
    Subcommittee on H. Res. 920, Committee on the Judiciary, Sept. 17, 1970;
    Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United
    States, H. Rept. 105-830, Dec. 16, 1998). For a time the theory that
    indictable offenses only were impeachable was stoutly maintained and as
    stoutly denied (III, 2356, 2360-2362, 2379-2381, 2405, 2406, 2410,
    2416); but on the 10th and 11th articles of the impeachment of the
    President (Andrew Johnson) the House concluded to impeach for other than
    indictable offenses (III, 2418), and in the Swayne trial the theory was
    definitely abandoned (III, 2019). While there has not been definite
    concurrence in the claim of the managers in the trial of the President
    that an impeachable offense is any misbehavior that shows
    disqualification to hold and exercise the

    [[Page 75]]

    Ritter v. United States, 84 Ct. Cls. 293 (1936), cert. denied, 300 U.S.
    668 (1937).

    Sec. 176. Later impeachment inquiries.

      The  articles of
    impeachment adopted by the House in 1936 against Judge Ritter charged a
    variety of judicial misconduct, including violations of criminal law;
    the seventh and general article, upon which Judge Ritter was convicted
    by the Senate, charged general misconduct to bring his court into
    scandal and disrepute and to destroy public confidence in his court and
    in the judicial system (Impeachment by the House, Mar. 2, 1936, p. 3091;
    Conviction by the Senate, Apr. 17, 1936, p. 5606). Following his
    conviction by the Senate, former Judge Ritter brought an action for back
    salary, contending that the Senate had tried and convicted him for
    nonimpeachable offenses. The U.S. Court of Claims held that the Senate's
    power to try impeachments was exclusive and not subject to judicial
    review.

      In 1970 a special subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary
    considered charges of impeachment against Associate Justice Douglas of
    the Supreme Court. The subcommittee recommended against his impeachment
    but concluded that a Federal judge could be impeached (1) for judicial
    conduct which is a serious dereliction from public duty and (2) for
    nonjudicial conduct which is criminal in nature (Associate Justice
    William O. Douglas, Final Report by the Special Subcommittee on H. Res.
    920, Committee on the Judiciary, September 17, 1970).

      In 1974 the Committee on the Judiciary investigated charges of
    impeachment against President Nixon (H. Res. 803, Feb. 6, 1974, p.
    2349), and determined to recommend his impeachment to the House. The
    President having resigned, the committee reported to the House without
    submitting a resolution of impeachment, and the House accepted the
    report by resolution (H. Res. 1333, Aug. 20, 1974, p. 29361). The report
    of the committee included the text of the three articles of impeachment
    adopted by the committee. The committee had concluded that impeachable
    offenses need not be indictable offenses and had impeached the President
    (1) for violating his oath of office and his duty under the Constitution
    by preventing, obstructing, and impeding the administration of justice;
    (2) for engaging in a course of conduct violating the constitutional
    rights of citizens, impairing the administration of justice, and
    contravening the laws governing executive agencies; and (3) for failing
    to honor subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary in the
    course of its impeachment inquiry (Impeachment of Richard M. Nixon,
    President of the United States, Committee on the Judiciary, H. Rept. 93-
    1305, Aug. 20, 1974, printed in full in the Cong. Record, Aug. 22, 1974,
    p. 29219).

      In 1986, for the first time since 1936, the House agreed to a
    resolution impeaching a Federal district judge. Judge Harry Claiborne
    had been convicted of falsifying Federal income tax returns. His final
    appeal was denied by the Supreme Court in April, and he began serving
    his prison sentence in May. Because he declined to resign, however,
    Judge Claiborne was still receiving his judicial salary and, absent
    impeachment, would resume the bench on his release from prison.
    Consequently, a resolution of impeachment was introduced on June 3, and
    on July 16, the Committee on the Judiciary reported to the House four
    articles of impeachment against Judge Claiborne. On July 22, the
    resolution was called up as a question of privilege and agreed to by a
    recorded vote of 406 yeas, 0 nays. After trial in the Senate, Judge
    Claiborne was convicted on three of the four articles of impeachment and
    removed from office on October 9, 1986.

    [[Page 76]]

    criminal trial (H. Res. 499, 100th Cong., Aug. 3, 1988, p. 20206). No
    trial in the Senate was had before the adjournment of the 100th
    Congress. In the 101st Congress, the House reappointed managers to
    conduct this impeachment in the Senate (Jan. 3, 1989, p. 84); the Senate
    began its deliberations on March 15, 1989 (p. 4219); conviction and
    removal from office occurred on October 20, 1989 (p. 25335). Also in the
    101st Congress, the Senate convicted Federal district judge Walter L.
    Nixon on two of the three impeachment charges brought against him (Nov.
    3, 1989, p. 27101). For further discussion of the continuance of
    impeachment proceedings in a succeeding Congress, see Sec. 620, infra.
      In 1988, the House agreed to a resolution reported from the Committee
    on the Judiciary and called up as a question of the privileges of the
    House impeaching Federal district judge Alcee L. Hastings for high
    crimes and misdemeanors specified in 17 articles of impeachment, some of
    them addressing allegations on which the judge had been acquitted in a
    Federal

      In 1998 the House agreed to a privileged resolution reported from the
    Committee on Rules, referring to the Committee on the Judiciary a
    communication from an independent counsel transmitting under 28 U.S.C.
    595(c) evidence of possible impeachable offenses by President Clinton,
    and restricting access to the communication and to meetings and hearings
    thereon (H. Res. 525, Sept. 11, 1998, p. ----). Later, the House adopted
    a privileged resolution reported from the Committee on the Judiciary
    authorizing an impeachment inquiry by that committee and investing it
    with special investigative authorities to facilitate the inquiry (H.
    Res. 581, Oct. 8, 1998, p. ----). The Committee on the Judiciary filed
    with the House a privileged report accompanying a resolution containing
    four articles of impeachment against President Clinton that alleged: (1)
    the President gave perjurious, false, and misleading testimony to a
    grand jury; (2) the President gave perjurious, false, and misleading
    testimony in a Federal civil action; (3) the President prevented,
    obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice relating to a
    Federal civil action; and (4) the President abused his office, impaired
    the administration of justice, and contravened the authority of the
    legislative branch by his response to 81 written questions submitted by
    the Committee on the Judiciary (H. Res. 611, Dec. 17, 1998, p. ----).
    The chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary called up the resolution
    on December 18, 1998 (p. ----). A resolution offered from the floor to
    permit the Delegate of the District of Columbia to vote on the articles
    of impeachment was held not to constitute a question of the privileges
    of the House under rule IX (Dec. 18, 1998, p. ----). To a privileged
    resolution of impeachment, an amendment proposing instead censure, which
    is not privileged, was held not germane (Dec. 19, 1998, p. ----).

      For further discussion of impeachment proceedings, see Sec. Sec. 601-
    620, infra; Sec. 31, supra, and Deschler, ch. 14.

                                  ARTICLE III.

    [[Page 77]]

    time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and
    inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and
    shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation,
    which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

    Sec. 177. The judges, their terms, and
    compensation.

      Section 1.  The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested
    in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may
    from

    Sec. 178. Extent of the judicial
    power.

      Section 2. \1\The  judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity,
    arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and
    Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all
    Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all
    Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which
    the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or
    more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between
    Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State
    claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or
    the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

    Sec. 178a. Decisions of the Court on legislative
    standing.

      Decisions  of the Supreme Court involving legislative standing to bring
    cases in Federal court include Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939);
    Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996 (1979); Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737
    (1984); Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149 (1990); and, most recently,
    Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997), holding that Member plaintiffs must
    have alleged a ``personal stake'' in having an actual injury redressed,
    rather than an ``institutional injury'' that is ``abstract and widely
    dispersed.''

    [[Page 78]]

    have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the
    supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and
    Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress
    shall make.

    Sec. 179. Original and appellate jurisdiction of the
    Supreme Court.

      \2\In  all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers
    and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme
    Court shall

    Sec. 180. Places of trial of crimes by jury.

      \3\The  Trial of
    all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such
    Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been
    committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be
    at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

    Sec. 181. Treason against the United
    States.

      Section 3. \1\Treason  against the United States, shall consist only in levying War
    against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and
    Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony
    of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

    Sec. 182. Punishment for treason.

      \2\The  Congress shall have
    Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason
    shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of
    the Person Attainted.

                                   ARTICLE IV.

    [[Page 79]]

    Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and
    the Effect thereof.
    <>   Section 2.
    \1\The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and
    Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

    Sec. 183. Each State to give credit to acts,
    records, etc., of other States.

      Section 1.  Full Faith and Credit shall be given
    in each State to the Public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of
    every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the

    Sec. 185. Extradition for treason, felony, or other
    crime.

      \2\A  Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other
    Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall
    on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be
    delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the
    Crime.

    Sec. 186. Persons held to service or labor.

      \3\No  Person
    held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping
    into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be
    discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on
    Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

    Sec. 187. Admission and formation of new
    States.

      Section 3. \1\New  States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no
    new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any
    other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more
    States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of
    the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

    [[Page 80]]

    the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so
    construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any
    particular State.

    Sec. 188. Power of Congress over territory and other
    national property.

      \2\The  Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make
    all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other
    Property belonging to

      The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has held
    that the property clause does not prohibit the transfer of United States
    property to foreign nations through self-executing treaties. Edwards v.
    Carter, 580 F.2d 1055 (1978), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 907 (1978).

    Sec. 189. Republican form of government and
    protection from domestic violence guaranteed to the States.

      Section 4. The  United
    States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of
    Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on
    Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the
    Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

                                   ARTICLE V.

    [[Page 81]]

    fect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first
    Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of
    its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

    Sec. 190. Amendments to the Constitution.

      The  Congress,
    whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall
    propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the
    Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a
    Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be
    valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when
    ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or
    by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of
    Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment
    which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight
    shall in any Manner af

    Sec. 191. Form of and action on amendments to the
    Constitution.

      Amendments  to the Constitution are proposed in the form of joint
    resolutions, which have their several readings and are enrolled and
    signed by the presiding officers of the two Houses (V, 7029, footnote),
    but are not presented to the President for his approval (V, 7040; see
    discussion under Sec. 115, supra; Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 U.S. (3
    Dall.) 378 (1798)). They are filed with the Archivist who, under the law
    (1 U.S.C. 106b; 1 U.S.C. 112), has the responsibility for the
    certification and publication of such amendments, once they are ratified
    by the States. Under the earlier procedure, the two Houses sometimes
    requested the President to transmit to the States certain proposed
    amendments (V, 7041, 7043), but a concurrent resolution to that end was
    without privilege (VIII, 3508). The President notified Congress by
    message of the promulgation of the ratification of a constitutional
    amendment (V, 7044).-

    Sec. 192. The twothirds vote on proposed
    amendments.

      The  vote required on a joint resolution proposing an amendment
    to the Constitution is two-thirds of those voting, a quorum being
    present, and not two-thirds of the entire membership (V, 7027, 7028;
    VIII, 3503). The majority required to pass a constitutional amendment,
    like the majority required to pass a bill over the President's veto
    (VII, 1111) and the majority required to adopt a motion to suspend the
    rules (Dec. 16, 1981, pp. 31850, 31851, 31855, 31856), is two-thirds of
    those Members voting either in the affirmative or negative, a quorum
    being present, and Members who only indicate that they are ``present''
    are not counted in this computation (Nov. 15, 1983, p. 32685). The
    requirement of the two-thirds vote applies to the vote on the final
    passage and not to amendments (V, 7031, 7032; VIII, 3504), or prior
    stages (V, 7029, 7030), but is required where the House votes on
    agreeing to Senate amendments (V, 7033, 7034; VIII, 3505), or on
    agreeing to a conference report (V, 7036). One House having, by a two-
    thirds vote, passed in amended form a proposed constitutional amendment
    from the other House, and then having by a majority vote receded from
    its amendment, the constitutional amendment was held not to be passed
    (V, 7035).

    [[Page 82]]

    was required to pass a joint resolution extending the ratification
    period for a constitutional amendment already submitted to the States,
    that only a majority vote was required on H.J. Res. 638 (Speaker
    O'Neill, Aug. 15, 1978, p. 26203).
      In the 95th Congress, both the House and Senate agreed by a majority
    vote to House Joint Resolution 638, extending the time period for
    ratification by the States of the Equal Rights Amendment, where House
    Joint Resolution 208 of the 92d Congress, proposing the amendment, had
    provided for a seven-year ratification period. The House determined in
    the 95th Congress, by laying on the table by a record vote a privileged
    resolution asserting that a vote of two-thirds of the Members present
    and voting

      The joint resolution extending the ratification period for the Equal
    Rights Amendment was delivered to the President, who signed it although
    expressing doubt as to the necessity for his doing so (Presidential
    Documents, Oct. 19, 1978). When sent to the Archivist, the joint
    resolution was not assigned a public law number, but the Archivist
    notified the States of the action of the Congress in extending the
    ratification period. For a judicial decision voiding this extension as
    well as declaring that a State does have the power to rescind a prior
    ratification of a proposed constitutional amendment, see Idaho v.
    Freeman, 529 F.Supp. 1107 (D.C.D. Idaho, 1981), judgment stayed sub nom.
    National Organization of Women v. Idaho, 455 U.S. 918 (1982), vacated
    and remanded to dismiss, 459 U.S. 809 (1982).

      The yeas and nays are not required to pass a joint resolution
    proposing to amend the Constitution (V, 7038-7039; VIII, 3506).

      Question has arisen as to the power of a State to recall its assent to
    a constitutional amendment (V, 7042; footnotes to Sec. Sec. 225, 234,
    infra) but has not been the subject of a final judicial determination.

    Sec. 193. Decisions of the Court.

      Decisions  of the Supreme
    Court of the United States: National Prohibition Cases, 253 U.S. 350
    (1920); Hawke v. Smith, 253 U.S. 221 (1920); Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S.
    368 (1921); Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130 (1922); Coleman v. Miller,
    307 U.S. 433 (1939); Chandler v. Wise, 307 U.S. 474 (1939).

                                   ARTICLE VI.

    Sec. 194. Validity of debts and engagements.

      \1\All  Debts
    contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this
    Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this
    Constitution, as under the Confederation.

    [[Page 83]]

    any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
    notwithstanding.

    Sec. 195. Constitution, laws, and treaties the supreme
    law of the land.

      \2\This  Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which
    shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which
    shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the
    supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound
    thereby,

    Sec. 196. Oaths of public officers; and prohibition of
    religious tests.

      \3\The  Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and
    the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and
    judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States,
    shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but
    no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any
    Office or public Trust under the United States.

    Sec. 197. Form of oath.

      The  form of the oath is prescribed
    by statute (5 U.S.C. 3331; I, 128): ``I, AB, do solemnly swear (or
    affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United
    States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true
    faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely,
    without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will
    well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am
    about to enter. So help me God.''

    Sec. 198. Administration of oath at organization.

      The  Act of
    June 1, 1789 (2 U.S.C. 25), provides that on the organization of the
    House and previous to entering on any other business the oath shall be
    administered by any Member (generally the Member with longest continuous
    service) (I, 131; VI, 6) to the Speaker and by the Speaker to the other
    Members and Clerk (I, 130). The Act, has at times been considered in the
    House as directory merely (I, 118, 242, 243, 245; VI, 6); but at other
    times has been observed carefully (I, 118, 140). The Act was cited by
    the Clerk in recognizing for nominations for Speaker as being of higher
    constitutional privilege than a resolution to postpone the election of a
    Speaker and instead provide for the election of a Speaker pro tempore
    pending the disposition of certain ethics charges against the nominee of
    the majority party (Jan. 7, 1997, p. 115).

    [[Page 84]]

      Previously it was the custom to administer the oath by State
    delegations, but beginning with the 71st Congress Members-elect have
    been sworn in en masse (VI, 8). The Clerk supplies printed copies of the
    oath to Members and Delegates who have taken the oath in accordance with
    law, which shall be subscribed by the Members and Delegates and
    delivered to the Clerk to be recorded in the Journal and Congressional
    Record as conclusive proof of the fact that the signer duly took the
    oath in accordance with law (2 U.S.C. 25). See Deschler, ch. 2. The
    Speaker has requested that guests in the gallery rise with the Members
    during the administration of the oath of office to a Member-elect (Nov.
    12, 1991, p. 31255).

    Sec. 199. Functions of the Speaker in administering the
    oath.

      The  Speaker possesses no arbitrary power in the administration of
    the oath (I, 134), and when objection is made the question must be
    decided by the House and not by the Chair (I, 519, 520). An objection
    prevents the Speaker from administering the oath of his own authority,
    even though the credentials be regular in form (I, 135-138). The Speaker
    has frequently declined to administer the oath in cases wherein the
    House has, by its action, indicated that he should not do so (I, 139,
    140). And in case of doubt he has waited the instruction of the House
    (I, 396; VI, 11). There has been discussion as to the competency of a
    Speaker pro tempore to administer the oath (I, 170), and in the absence
    of the Speaker a Member-elect waited until the Speaker should be present
    (I, 179), but in 1920 a Speaker pro tempore whose designation by the
    Speaker had been approved by the House, administered the oath to a
    Member (VI, 20). The House may authorize the Speaker to administer the
    oath to a Member away from the House (I, 169), or may, in such a case,
    authorize another than the Speaker to administer the oath (I, 170; VI,
    14). For forms used in this procedure see (VI, 14).

    Sec. 200. Administration of the oath as related
    to the quorum.

      Members-elect  have been sworn at the beginning of a second session
    before the ascertainment of a quorum (I, 176-178), but when the Clerk
    called the second session of the 87th Congress to order, Members-elect
    were not sworn prior to ascertainment of a quorum and election of
    Speaker McCormack to succeed Speaker Rayburn, who had died during the
    sine die adjournment (Jan. 10, 1962, p. 5). Members-elect have also been
    sworn where a roll call or other ascertainment has shown the absence of
    a quorum (I, 178, 181, 182; VI, 21) but in one instance, however, the
    Speaker declined to administer the oath under such circumstances (II,
    875).

    [[Page 85]]

    Sec. 201. Privilege of administration of the
    oath.

      A  proposition to administer the oath to a Member is a matter of
    high privilege (VI, 14), and the oath has been administered during a
    call of the roll on a motion to agree to rules at the time of
    organization (I, 173; VI, 22), before the reading of the Journal (I,
    172), in the absence of a quorum (VI, 22), on Calendar Wednesday (VI,
    22), before a pending motion to amend the Journal (I, 171), and after
    the previous question has been ordered on a bill reported back to the
    House from the Committee of the Whole (Oct. 3, 1969, p. 28487). A
    division being demanded on a resolution for seating several claimants,
    the oath may be administered to each as soon as his case is decided (I,
    623). Where a Member-elect whose right to a seat has been determined by
    the House presents himself to take the oath, his right to be sworn is
    complete and cannot be deferred even by a motion to adjourn (I, 622),
    but the Speaker has entertained the motion to adjourn after adoption of
    a seating resolution but before the Member-elect was present in the
    Chamber to take the oath (May 1, 1985, p. 10019).

    Sec. 202. Challenge of the right to take the oath.

      The  right
    of a Member-elect to take the oath is sometimes challenged and the
    Speaker requests the Member-elect to stand aside temporarily (VI, 9-11,
    174; VIII, 3386). This usually occurs at the time of organization of the
    House. The challenge proceeds from some Member, but the fact that he has
    not yet taken the oath himself does not debar him from making the
    challenge (I, 141). The Member challenging does so on his responsibility
    as a Member or on the strength of documents (I, 448) or on both (I, 443,
    474). And where an objection was sustained neither by affidavit nor on
    the responsibility of the Member objecting, the House declined to
    entertain it (I, 455).

    Sec. 203. Consideration of an objection to the taking of
    the oath.

      It  has been held, although not uniformly, that in cases where
    the right of a Member-elect to take the oath is challenged, the Speaker
    may direct the Member to stand aside temporarily (I, 143-146, 474; VI,
    9, 174; VIII, 3386). The Member so challenged is not thereby deprived of
    any right (I, 155). Similarly, the seating of a Member-elect does not
    prejudice a pending contest, brought under the Federal Contested
    Elections Act (2 U.S.C. 381-396), over final right to the seat (Jan. 7,
    1997, p. 120). When several are challenged and stand aside
    the question is first taken on the Member-elect first required to stand
    aside (I, 147, 148). In 1861 it was held that the House might direct
    contested names to be passed over until the other Members-elect had been
    sworn in (I, 154). Motions and debate are in order on the questions
    involved in a challenge, and in a few cases other business has
    intervened by unanimous consent (I, 149, 150). By unanimous consent the
    consideration of a challenge is sometimes deferred until after the
    completion of the organization (I, 474), and by unanimous consent also
    the House has sometimes proceeded to legislative business pending
    consideration of the right of a Member to be sworn (I, 151-152).

    [[Page 86]]

    initial as well as final right to the Committee on House Administration
    (H. Res. 1, Jan. 3, 1985, pp. 380-87). After a recount of the votes was
    conducted by that committee, the House on its recommendation declared
    the candidate without the certificate entitled to the seat (H. Res. 146,
    May 1, 1985, p. 9998). The House also may defer the oath when a question
    of qualifications arises (I, 474), but it may investigate qualifications
    after the oath is taken (I, 156-159, 420, 462, 481), and after
    investigation unseat the Member by majority vote (I, 428).

    Sec. 204. Relation of credentials to the right to
    take the oath.

      Although  the House has emphasized the impropriety of swearing-in
    a Member without credentials (I, 162-168), yet it has been done in cases
    wherein the credentials are delayed or lost and there is no doubt of the
    election (I, 85, 176-178; VI, 12, 13), or where the governor of a State
    has declined to give credentials to a person whose election was
    undoubted and uncontested (I, 553). A certificate of election in due
    form having been filed, the Clerk placed the name of the Member-elect on
    the roll, although he was subsequently advised that a State Supreme
    Court had issued a writ restraining the Secretary of State from issuing
    such certificate (Jan. 3, 1949, p. 8). Where the prima facie right is
    contested the Speaker declines to administer the oath (I, 550), but the
    House admits on his prima facie showing and without regard to final
    right a Member-elect from a recognized constituency whose credentials
    are in due form and whose qualifications are unquestioned (I, 528-534).
    If the status of the constituency is in doubt, the House usually defers
    the oath (I, 361, 386, 448, 461). In the 99th Congress, the House
    declined to give prima facie effect to a certificate of election, the
    results of the election being in doubt, and referred the issue of

    Sec. 205. Sanity, loyalty, and
    incapacity as related to the oath.

      Questions  of sanity (I, 441) and
    loyalty (I, 448) seem to pertain to the competency to take the oath
    rather than to the question of qualifications, although there has been
    not a little debate on this subject (I, 479). In one case a Member-elect
    who had not taken the oath, was excluded from the House because of
    disloyalty, where the resolution of exclusion and the committee report
    thereon concluded that he was ineligible to take a seat as a
    Representative under the express provisions of section 3 of the 14th
    amendment (VI, 56-59). This action by the House was cited in the Supreme
    Court decision of Powell v. McCormack (395 U.S. 486, 545 fn. 83) which
    denied the power of the House to exclude Members-elect by a majority
    vote for other than failure to meet the express qualifications stated in
    the Constitution. In Bond v. Floyd, 385 U.S. 116 (1966), the Supreme
    Court held that the exclusion by a State legislature of a member-elect
    of that body was unconstitutional, where the legislature had asserted
    the power to judge the sincerity with which the Member-elect could take
    the oath to support the Constitution of the United States. In the 97th
    Congress, the House declared vacant by majority vote the
    seat of a Member-elect unable to take the oath because of
    illness, where the medical prognosis showed no likelihood of improvement
    to permit the Member-elect to take the oath or assume the duties of a
    Representative (H. Res. 80, Feb. 24, 1981, pp. 2916-18).

    Sec. 206. Decisions of the Court.

      Decisions  of the Supreme
    Court of the United States: McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.)
    316 (1819); Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 333 (1867); Davis v.
    Beason, 133 U.S. 333 (1890); Mormon Church  v. United States, 136 U.S. 1
    (1890).

                                  ARTICLE VII.

    Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the

    Sec. 207. Ratification of the Constitution.

      The  Ratification
    of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the
    Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the
    Same.

    [[Page 87]]

        Seventeenth Day of

        September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and

        Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America

        the Twelfth In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our

        Names,

                             Go WASHINGTON--Presidt.

                                                   and Deputy from Virginia.

        [Signed also by the deputies of twelve States.]

    John Langdon,                        Nicholas Gilman.

                                 New Hampshire.

    Nathaniel Gorham,                    Rufus King.

                                 Massachusetts.

    Wm. Saml. Johnson,                   Roger Sherman.

                                  Connecticut.

    Alexander Hamilton.

                                    New York.

    Wil: Livingston,                     Wm. Paterson,

    David Brearley,                      Jona: Dayton.

                                   New Jersey.

    B Franklin,                          Thomas Mifflin,

    RobT. Morris,             Geo. Clymer,

    Thos. FitzSimons,                    Jared Ingersoll,

    James Wilson,                        Gouv Morris.

                                  Pennsylvania.

    Geo. Read,                           Gunning Bedford jun,

    John Dickinson,                      Richard Bassett.

    Jaco Broom,

    [[Page 88]]

                                    Delaware.

    James McHenry,                       Dan of ST Thos. Jenifer.

    Danl Carroll,

                                    Maryland.

    John Blair,                          James Madison Jr.

                                    Virginia.

    Wm. Blount,                          Rich'D. Dobbs Spaight.

    Hu Williamson,

                                 North Carolina.

    J. Rutledge,                         Charles Cotesworth Pinckney,

    Charles Pinckney,                    Pierce Butler.

                                 South Carolina.

    William Few,                         Abr Baldwin.

                                    Georgia.

    [[Page 89]]

      Attest:                            William Jackson, Secretary.

                              AMENDMENTS RATIFIED

       articles in addition to, and amendment of, the constitution of the

      united states of america, proposed by congress, and ratified by the

          several states pursuant to the fifth article of the original

                           constitution\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      \1\The first 10 amendments to the Constitution of the
    United States were proposed to the legislatures of the several States by
    the First Congress on September 25, 1789 (this date and the date
    succeeding amendments were proposed is the date of final congressional
    action--signature by the presiding officer of the Senate--as is shown in
    the Senate Journals). They were ratified by the following States, on the
    dates shown, and the notifications by the governors thereof of
    ratification were communicated by the President to Congress: New Jersey,
    November 20, 1789; Maryland, December 19, 1789; North Carolina, December
    22, 1789; South Carolina, January 19, 1790; New Hampshire, January 25,
    1790; Delaware, January 28, 1790; New York, February 27, 1790;
    Pennsylvania, March 10, 1790; Rhode Island, June 7, 1790; Vermont,
    November 3, 1791; and Virginia, December 15, 1791. Ratification was
    completed on December 15, 1791. The amendments were subsequently
    ratified by Massachusetts, March 2, 1939; Georgia, March 18, 1939; and
    Connecticut, April 19, 1939.

                                  AMENDMENT I.

    Sec. 208. Freedom of religion, of speech, and of
    peaceable assembly.

      Congress  shall make no law respecting an establishment of
    religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
    freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably
    to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

                                  AMENDMENT II.

    [[Page 90]]

    Sec. 209. The right to bear arms.

      A  well regulated Militia
    being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people
    to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

                                 AMENDMENT III.

    Sec. 210. Quartering of soldiers in houses.

      No  soldier
    shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent
    of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by
    law.

                                  AMENDMENT IV.

    Sec. 211. Security from unreasonable searches and
    seizures.

      The  right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
    papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall
    not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
    supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
    to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

                                  AMENDMENT V.

    [[Page 91]]

    Sec. 212. Security as to accusations, trials, and
    property.

      No  person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise
    infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,
    except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia,
    when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any
    person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of
    life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any Criminal Case to be a
    witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
    without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for
    public use, without just compensation.

                                  AMENDMENT VI.

    Sec. 213. Right to trial by jury and to confront witnesses
    and secure testimony.

      In  all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall
    enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of
    the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,
    which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be
    informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted
    with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining
    witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his
    defence.

                                 AMENDMENT VII.

    Sec. 214. Jury trial in suits at common law.

      In  suits at
    common law, where the value in Controversy shall exceed twenty dollars,
    the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a
    jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States,
    than according to the rules of the common law.

    <>   Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive
    fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

    [[Page 92]]

                                 AMENDMENT VIII.

    <>   The enumeration in
    the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
    construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

                                  AMENDMENT IX.

                                  AMENDMENT X.

    Sec. 217. Powers reserved to the States.

      The  powers not
    delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it
    to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the
    people.

                           AMENDMENT XI.\2\

    Sec. 218. Extent of the judicial power.

      The  Judicial power
    of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law
    or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by
    Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign
    State.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [[Page 93]]

      \2\The 11th amendment to the Constitution of the United
    States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the
    Third Congress on March 11, 1794; and was declared in a message from the
    President to Congress dated the 8th of January, 1798, to have been
    ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the States. The dates
    of ratification were: New York, March 27, 1794; Rhode Island, March 31,
    1794; Connecticut, May 8, 1794; New Hampshire, June 16, 1794;
    Massachusetts, June 26, 1794; Vermont, October 28, 1794; Virginia,
    November 18, 1794; Georgia, November 29, 1794; Kentucky, December 7,
    1794; Maryland, December 26, 1794; Delaware, January 23, 1795; and North
    Carolina, February 7, 1795. Ratification was completed on February 7,
    1795. The amendment was subsequently ratified by South Carolina on
    December 4, 1797. New Jersey and Pennsylvania did not take action on the
    amendment.

                          AMENDMENT XII.\3\

    Sec. 219. Meeting of the electors and transmission and
    count of their votes.

      The  Electors shall meet in their respective states,
    and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at
    least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves;
    they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and
    in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they
    shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of
    all persons voted for as Vice-President, and the number of votes for
    each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to
    the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the
    President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in presence
    of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates
    and the votes shall then be counted;-- * * *
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [[Page 94]]

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      \3\See article II, section 1 of the Constitution.
    The 12th amendment to the Constitution was proposed to the
    legislatures of the several States by the Eighth Congress on December
    12, 1803, in lieu of the original third paragraph of the first section
    of the second article, and was declared in a proclamation of the
    Secretary of State, dated the 25th of September, 1804, to have been
    ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the States. The dates
    of ratification were: North Carolina, December 21, 1803; Maryland,
    December 24, 1803; Kentucky, December 27, 1803; Ohio, December 30, 1803;
    Virginia, December 31, 1803; Pennsylvania, January 5, 1804; Vermont,
    January 30, 1804; New York, February 10, 1804; New Jersey, February 22,
    1804; Rhode Island, March 12, 1804; South Carolina, May 15, 1804;
    Georgia, May 19, 1804; New Hampshire, June 15, 1804. Ratification was
    completed on June 15, 1804. The amendment was subsequently ratified by
    Tennessee on July 27, 1804. The amendment was rejected by Delaware,
    January 18, 1804; Massachusetts, February 3, 1804; and by Connecticut at
    its session begun May 10, 1804.

    Sec. 220. The electoral count.

      The  electoral count occurs in
    a joint session of the two Houses in the Hall of the House (III, 1819)
    at 1 p.m. on the sixth day of January succeeding every meeting of
    electors (3 U.S.C. 15). The Vice President, as President of the Senate
    (or the President pro tempore in the Vice President's absence), presides
    over the joint session (3 U.S.C. 15). The date of the count has been
    changed by law as follows: (1) the 1957 count was changed to Monday,
    January 7 (P.L. 84-436); (2) the 1985 count was changed to Monday,
    January 7 (P.L. 98-456); (3) the 1989 count was changed to Wednesday,
    January 4 (P.L. 100-646); and (4) the 1997 count was changed to
    Thursday, January 9 (P.L. 104-296).

      Sections 15-18 of title 3 of the United States Code prescribe in
    detail the procedure for the count. Nevertheless, the two Houses
    traditionally adopt a concurrent resolution providing for the meeting in
    joint session to count the vote, for the appointment of tellers, and for
    the declaration of the state of the vote (III, 1961; Deschler, ch. 10,
    Sec. 2.1). Under the law governing the proceedings, the two Houses
    divide to consider an objection to the counting of any electoral vote or
    ``other question arising in the matter'' (3 U.S.C. 15-18; Jan. 6, 1969,
    pp. 145-47; Jan. 6, 2001, p. ----), but only when in writing and signed
    by both a Member and a Senator (Jan. 6, 2001, p. ----). Examples of an
    ``other question arising in the matter'' include: (1) an objection for
    lack of a quorum (Jan. 6, 2001, p. ----); (2) a motion that either House
    withdraw from the joint session (Jan. 6, 2001, p. ----); and (3) an
    appeal from a ruling by the presiding officer (Jan. 6, 2001, p. ----).
    Such questions are not debatable in the joint session (3 U.S.C. 18; Jan.
    6, 2001, p. ----). When the two Houses have divided, a motion in the
    House to lay the objection on the table is not in order (Jan. 6, 1969;
    pp. 169-72). A Vice President-elect, as Speaker of the House, has
    participated in the ceremonies (VI, 446). See Deschler, ch. 10 for
    further discussion. When addressing a controversy over the
    election of President and Vice President in the State of
    Florida, the Supreme Court indicated its view of a section of the
    statute (3 U.S.C. 5) addressing a determination of controversy as to the
    appointment of electors (Bush v Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd. (531
    U.S. ---- (2000)). Ultimately, the Supreme Court found that the Florida
    Supreme Court violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment
    by ordering certain counties to conduct manual recounts of the votes for
    President and Vice President without establishing standards for those
    recounts (Bush v Gore (531 U.S. ---- (2000)).

    [[Page 95]]

    have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not
    exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House
    of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.
    But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the
    representation from each State having one vote; a quorum
    for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of
    the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a
    choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President
    whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth
    day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as
    President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional
    disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of
    votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be
    a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person
    have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the
    Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall
    consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of
    the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person
    constitutionally ineligible to the Office of President
    shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

    [[Page 96]]

    Sec. 221. Elections of President and Vice President
    by the House and Senate in certain cases.

      * * * The  person having the greatest
    number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be
    a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person

    Sec. 222. History of original provision for failure of
    electoral college to choose.

      The  20th amendment to the Constitution has
    clarified some of the provisions of the 12th amendment. In 1801 (III,
    1983), the House of Representatives chose a President under article II,
    section 1, clause 3 (see Sec. 152a, supra), the constitutional provision
    superseded by the 12th amendment.

    Sec. 223. Occasions of election by House and Senate after
    1803.

      In  1825 the House elected a President under the 12th amendment
    (III, 1985); and in 1837 the Senate elected a Vice President (III,
    1941).

                          AMENDMENT XIII.\4\

    [[Page 97]]

    exist within the United States, or any place subject to their
    jurisdiction.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sec. 224. Prohibition of slavery and involuntary
    servitude.

      Section 1.  Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a
    punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
    shall

      \4\The 13th amendment to the Constitution of the United
    States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the
    38th Congress, on February 1, 1865, and was declared, in a proclamation
    of the Secretary of State, dated the 18th of December 1865, to have been
    ratified by the legislatures of 27 of the 36 States. The dates of
    ratification were: Illinois, February 1, 1865; Rhode Island, February 2,
    1865; Michigan, February 2, 1865; Maryland, February 3, 1865; New York,
    February 3, 1865; Pennsylvania, February 3, 1865; West Virginia,
    February 3, 1865; Missouri, February 6, 1865; Maine, February 7, 1865;
    Kansas, February 7, 1865; Massachusetts, February 7, 1865; Virginia,
    February 9, 1865; Ohio, February 16, 1865; Indiana, February 13, 1865;
    Nevada, February 16, 1865; Louisiana, February 17, 1865; Minnesota,
    February 23, 1865; Wisconsin, February 24, 1865; Vermont, March 9, 1865;
    Tennessee, April 7, 1865; Arkansas, April 14, 1865; Connecticut, May 4,
    1865; New Hampshire, July 1, 1865; South Carolina, November 13, 1865;
    Alabama, December 2, 1865; North Carolina, December 4, 1865; and
    Georgia, December 6, 1865. Ratification was completed on December 6,
    1865. The amendment was subsequently ratified by Oregon, December 8,
    1865; California, December 19, 1865; Florida, December 28, 1865 (Florida
    again ratified on June 9, 1868, upon its adoption of a new
    constitution); Iowa, January 15, 1866; New Jersey, January 23, 1866
    (after having rejected the amendment on March 16, 1865); Texas, February
    18, 1870; Delaware, February 12, 1901 (after having rejected the
    amendment on February 8, 1865); Kentucky, March 30, 1976 (after hearing
    rejected the amendment on February 24, 1865). The amendment was rejected
    by Mississippi, December 4, 1865.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
    appropriate legislation.

                          AMENDMENT XIV.\5\

    [[Page 98]]

    State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which
    shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
    States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
    property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
    jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sec. 225. Citizenship security and
    equal protection of citizens.

      Section 1. All  persons born or naturalized in the
    United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of
    the United States and of the

      \5\The 14th amendment to the Constitution of the United
    States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the
    39th Congress, on June 15, 1866. On July 20, 1868, the Secretary of
    State issued a proclamation that the 14th amendment was a part of the
    Constitution if withdrawals of ratification were ineffective. On July
    21, 1868, Congress adopted and transmitted to the Department of State a
    concurrent resolution declaring that ``the legislatures of the States of
    Connecticut, Tennessee, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, New York, Ohio,
    Illinois, West Virginia, Kansas, Maine, Nevada, Missouri, Indiana,
    Minnesota, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Iowa, Arkansas,
    Florida, North Carolina, Alabama, South Carolina, and Louisiana, being
    three-fourths and more of the several States of the Union, have ratified
    the fourteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United
    States, duly proposed by two-thirds of each House of the Thirty-ninth
    Congress: Therefore Resolved, That said fourteenth article is hereby
    declared to be a part of the Constitution of the United States, and it
    shall be duly promulgated as such by the Secretary of State.'' The
    Secretary of State accordingly issued a proclamation, dated July 28,
    1868, declaring that the proposed 14th amendment had been ratified, in
    the manner hereafter mentioned, by the legislatures of 28 States. The
    dates of ratification were: Connecticut, June 30, 1866; New Hampshire,
    July 6, 1866; Tennessee, July 18, 1866; New Jersey, September 11, 1866
    (subsequently, on February 20, 1868, the legislature rescinded its
    ratification, and on March 24, 1868, readopted its resolution of
    rescission over the Governor's veto); Oregon, September 19, 1866; New
    York, January 10, 1867; Ohio, January 11, 1867 (subsequently rescinded
    its ratification on January 13, 1868); Illinois, January 15, 1867; West
    Virginia, January 16, 1867; Michigan, January 16, 1867; Minnesota,
    January 16, 1867; Kansas, January 17, 1867; Maine, January 19, 1867;
    Nevada, January 22, 1867; Indiana, January 23, 1867; Missouri, January
    25, 1867; Pennsylvania, February 6, 1867; Rhode Island, February 7,
    1867; Wisconsin, February 13, 1867; Massachusetts, March 20, 1867;
    Nebraska, June 15, 1867; Iowa, March 16, 1868; Arkansas, April 6, 1868;
    Florida, June 9, 1868; North Carolina, July 4, 1868 (after having
    rejected the amendment December 14, 1866); Louisiana, July 9, 1868
    (after having rejected the amendment February 6, 1867); South Carolina,
    July 9, 1868 (after having rejected the amendment December 20, 1866).
    Ratification was completed on July 9, 1868. The amendment was
    subsequently ratified by Alabama, July 13, 1868; Georgia, July 21, 1868
    (after having rejected it on November 9, 1866); Virginia, October 8,
    1869 (after having rejected it on January 9, 1867); Mississippi, January
    17, 1870; Texas, February 18, 1870 (after having rejected it on October
    27, 1866); Delaware, February 12, 1901 (after having rejected it on
    February 8, 1867); Maryland, April 4, 1959 (after having rejected it on
    March 23, 1867); California, May 6, 1959; Kentucky, March 30, 1976
    (after having rejected it on January 10, 1867).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [[Page 99]]

    in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

    Sec. 226. Apportionment of
    representation.

      Section 2.  Representatives shall be apportioned among the several
    States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number
    of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the
    right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President
    and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress,
    the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the
    Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such
    State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States,
    or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other
    crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced

    Sec. 227. Law governing the establishment of
    districts.

      There  has been a readjustment of House representation each 10
    years except during the period 1911 to 1929 (VI, 41, footnote). From
    March 4, 1913, permanent House membership has remained fixed at 435 (VI,
    40, 41; 37 Stat. 13). Upon admission of Alaska and Hawaii to statehood,
    total membership was temporarily increased to 437 until the next
    reapportionment (72 Stat. 339, 345; 73 Stat. 8). Congress has by law
    provided for automatic apportionment of the 435 Representatives among
    the States according to each census including and after that of 1950 (2
    U.S.C. 2a). The Apportionment Act formerly provided that the districts
    in a State were to be composed of contiguous and compact territory
    containing as nearly as practicable an equal number of inhabitants (I,
    303; VI, 44); but subsequent apportionment Acts, those of 1929 (46 Stat.
    26) and 1941 (55 Stat. 761), omitted such provisions (see Wood v. Broom,
    287 U.S. 1 (1932)).

      Congress has by law provided that for the 91st and subsequent
    Congresses each State entitled to more than one Representative shall
    establish a number of districts equal to the number of such
    Representatives, and that Representatives shall be elected only from the
    single-Member districts so established. (Hawaii and New Mexico were
    excepted from the operation of this statute for the elections to the
    91st Congress by Public Law 90-196; see 2 U.S.C. 2c). After any
    apportionment, until a State is redistricted in a manner provided by its
    own law and in compliance with the congressional mandate, the question
    of whether its Representatives shall be elected by districts, at large,
    or by a combination of both, is determined by the Apportionment Act of
    1941 (2 U.S.C. 2a).

    [[Page 100]]

    may direct greater or lesser representation than that allocated by
    statute (Deschler, ch 8 Sec. 1). See Deschler, ch. 8 for apportionment
    and districting.
      Under the Apportionment Act, a statistical model known as the ``method
    of equal proportions'' is used to determine the number of
    Representatives to which each State is entitled. Although other methods
    for apportioning House seats may be permitted, the equal proportions
    method chosen by Congress has been upheld under the Constitution and was
    plainly intended to reach as close as practicable the goal of ``one
    person, one vote'' (Massachusetts v. Mosbacher, 785 F. Supp. 230 (D.
    Mass. 1992), rev'd on other grounds Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S.
    788 (1992)). The courts also have recently upheld under Federal law and
    the Constitution a counting methodology used by the Census Bureau in a
    decennial census. This method, known as ``imputation,'' was held to be
    different than ``sampling,'' a method prohibited under section 195 of
    title 13, United States Code (Utah v. Evans, 536 U.S. 452 (2002)). The
    method of apportioning the seats in the House is vested exclusively in
    Congress, and neither States nor courts

    Sec. 228. Questions as to elections.

      The  House has always
    seated Members elected at large in the States, although the law required
    election by districts (I, 310, 519). Questions have arisen from time to
    time when a vacancy has occurred soon after a change in districts, with
    the resulting question whether the vacancy should be filled by election
    in the old or new district (I, 311, 312, 327). The House has declined to
    interfere with the act of a State in changing the boundaries of a
    district after the apportionment has been made (I, 313).

      The Attorney General has stated that all Indians are subject to
    taxation. 39 Op. Att'y Gen. 518 (1940).

    Sec. 229. Requirement that districts be equally
    populated.

      The Supreme  Court has ruled that congressional districts must be as
    equally populated as practicable. Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1
    (1964); Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 385 U.S. 450 (1967). The Court has made
    clear that variances in population among congressional districts within
    a State may be considered de minimis only if they cannot practicably be
    avoided. If such variances, no matter how mathematically miniscule,
    could have been reduced or eliminated by a good faith effort, then they
    may be justified only on the basis of a consistent, rational State
    policy. Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725 (1983). The Court has also made
    evident that it will take judicial review of a claims that apportionment
    schemes lack consistent, rational bases. Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109
    (1986) (holding political gerrymandering complaint justiciable under
    equal protection clause).

    -
    [[Page 101]]

    Sec. 230. Loyalty as a qualification of Senators
    and Representatives.

      Section 3.  No person shall be a Senator or Representative in
    Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any
    office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State,
    who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an
    officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature,
    or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the
    Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or
    rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies
    thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove
    such disability.

    Sec. 231. Removal of disabilities and questions as to
    seating a Memberelect.

      Congress  has by law removed generally the disabilities
    arising from the Civil War (30 Stat. L., p. 432). Soon after the war
    various questions arose under this section (I, 386, 393, 455, 456). For
    disloyalty to the United States, for giving aid and comfort to a public
    enemy, for publication of expressions hostile to the Government a
    Member-elect was denied a seat in the House (VI, 56, 58). As to the
    meaning of the words ``aid or comfort'' as used in the 14th amendment
    (VI, 57).

    <>   Section 5. The
    Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the
    provisions of this article.

    Sec. 232. Validity of the national debt, etc.

      Section 4.  The
    validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law,
    including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for
    services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be
    questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or
    pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion
    against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of
    any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held
    illegal and void.

    [[Page 102]]

      Congress may legislate under this section to protect voting rights by
    preempting State qualifications for electors which are
    discriminatory (Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 (1966)), and may
    lower the voting age in Federal (but not State) elections (Oregon v.
    Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970)).

                           AMENDMENT XV.\6\

    Sec. 234. Suffrage not to be abridged for race,
    color, etc.

      Section 1.  The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall
    not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on
    account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      \6\The 15th amendment to the Constitution of the United
    States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the
    40th Congress on February 26, 1869, and was declared, in a proclamation
    of the Secretary of State, dated March 30, 1870, to have been ratified
    by the legislatures of 29 of the 37 States. The dates of these
    ratifications were: Nevada, March 1, 1869; West Virginia, March 3, 1869;
    North Carolina, March 5, 1869; Illinois, March 5, 1869; Louisiana, March
    5, 1869; Michigan, March 8, 1869; Wisconsin, March 9, 1869; Maine, March
    11, 1869; Massachusetts, March 12, 1869; Arkansas, March 15, 1869; South
    Carolina, March 15, 1869; Pennsylvania, March 25, 1869; New York, April
    14, 1869 (subsequently withdrew its consent to the ratification on
    January 5, 1870 but rescinded this action on March 30, 1970); Indiana,
    May 14, 1869; Connecticut, May 19, 1869; Florida, June 14, 1869; New
    Hampshire, July 1, 1869; Virginia, October 8, 1869; Vermont, October 20,
    1869; Alabama, November 16, 1869; Missouri, January 7, 1870 (Missouri
    had ratified the first section of the 15th amendment on March 1, 1869,
    but had failed to include in its ratification the second section of the
    amendment); Minnesota, January 13, 1870; Mississippi, January 17, 1870;
    Rhode Island, January 18, 1870; Kansas, January 19, 1870; Ohio, January
    27, 1870 (after having rejected the amendment April 30, 1869); Georgia,
    February 2, 1870; Iowa, February 3, 1870. Ratification was completed on
    February 3, 1870, unless the withdrawal of ratification by New York was
    effective; in which event ratification was completed on February 17,
    1870, when ratified by Nebraska. The amendment was subsequently ratified
    by Texas, February 18, 1870; New Jersey, February 15, 1871 (after having
    rejected it on February 7, 1870); Delaware, February 12, 1901 (after
    having rejected it on March 18, 1869); Oregon, February 24, 1959;
    California, April 3, 1962 (after having rejected it on January 28,
    1870); Maryland, May 7, 1973 (after having rejected it on February 4 and
    February 26, 1870); Kentucky, March 30, 1976 (after having rejected it
    on March 11 and March 12, 1869); and Tennessee, April 2, 1997, (after
    having rejected it on November 16, 1869).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [[Page 103]]

      Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
    appropriate legislation.

                          AMENDMENT XVI.\7\

    Sec. 235. Taxes on incomes.

      The  Congress shall have power to
    lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without
    apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census
    or enumeration.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [[Page 104]]

      \7\The 16th amendment to the Constitution of the United
    States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the
    61st Congress on July 16, 1909, and was declared, in a proclamation of
    the Secretary of State dated February 25, 1913, to have been ratified by
    the legislatures of 36 of the 48 States. The dates of ratification were:
    Alabama, August 10, 1909; Kentucky, February 8, 1910; South Carolina,
    February 19, 1910; Illinois, March 1, 1910; Mississippi, March 7, 1910;
    Oklahoma, March 10, 1910; Maryland, April 8, 1910; Georgia, August 3,
    1910; Texas, August 16, 1910; Ohio, January 19, 1911; Idaho, January 20,
    1911; Oregon, January 23, 1911; Washington, January 26, 1911; Montana,
    January 30, 1911; Indiana, January 30, 1911; California, January 31,
    1911; Nevada, January 31, 1911; South Dakota, February 3, 1911;
    Nebraska, February 9, 1911; North Carolina, February 11, 1911; Colorado,
    February 15, 1911; North Dakota, February 17, 1911; Kansas, February 18,
    1911; Michigan, February 23, 1911; Iowa, February 24, 1911; Missouri,
    March 16, 1911; Maine, March 31, 1911; Tennessee, April 7, 1911;
    Arkansas, April 22, 1911 (after having rejected it at the session begun
    January 9, 1911); Wisconsin, May 26, 1911; New York, July 12, 1911;
    Arizona, April 6, 1912; Minnesota, June 11, 1912; Louisiana, June 28,
    1912; West Virginia, January 31, 1913; Delaware, February 3, 1913;
    Wyoming, February 3, 1913; New Mexico, February 3, 1913. Ratification
    was completed on February 3, 1913. The amendment was subsequently
    ratified by New Jersey, February 4, 1913; Vermont, February 19, 1913
    (after having rejected the amendment January 17, 1911); Massachusetts,
    March 4, 1913; New Hampshire, March 7, 1913 (after having rejected the
    amendment March 2, 1911). The amendment was rejected by Rhode Island,
    April 29, 1910; Utah, March 9, 1911; Connecticut, June 28, 1911; and
    Florida, May 31, 1913. Pennsylvania and Virginia did not complete
    action.

                          AMENDMENT XVII.\8\

    Sec. 236. Election of Senators by direct vote.

      The  Senate of
    the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State,
    elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall
    have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications
    requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State
    legislatures.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      \8\See article I, section 3 of the Constitution.
    The 17th amendment to the Constitution was proposed to the
    legislatures of the several States by the 62d Congress on May 15, 1912,
    and was declared, in a proclamation by the Secretary of State dated May
    31, 1913, to have been ratified by the legislatures of 36 of the 48
    States. The dates of ratification were: Massachusetts, May 22, 1912;
    Arizona, June 3, 1912; Minnesota, June 10, 1912; New York, January 15,
    1913; Kansas, January 17, 1913; Oregon, January 23, 1913; North
    Carolina, January 25, 1913; California, January 28, 1913; Michigan,
    January 28, 1913; Iowa, January 30, 1913; Montana, January 30, 1913;
    Idaho, January 31, 1913; West Virginia, February 4, 1913; Colorado,
    February 5, 1913; Nevada, February 6, 1913; Texas, February 7, 1913;
    Washington, February 7, 1913; Wyoming, February 8, 1913; Arkansas,
    February 11, 1913; Maine, February 11, 1913; Illinois, February 13,
    1913; North Dakota, February 14, 1913; Wisconsin, February 18, 1913;
    Indiana, February 19, 1913; New Hampshire, February 19, 1913; Vermont,
    February 19, 1913; South Dakota, February 19, 1913; Oklahoma, February
    24, 1913; Ohio, February 25, 1913; Missouri, March 7, 1913; New Mexico,
    March 13, 1913; Nebraska, March 14, 1913; New Jersey, March 17, 1913;
    Tennessee, April 1, 1913; Pennsylvania, April 2, 1913; Connecticut,
    April 8, 1913. Ratification was completed on April 8, 1913. The
    amendment was subsequently ratified by Louisiana, June 11, 1914;
    North Carolina, May 3, 1989; Alabama, April 16, 2002. The
    amendment was rejected by Utah, February 26, 1913; Delaware, March 18,
    1913. Florida, Georgia, Rhode Island, and South Carolina
    did not complete action.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [[Page 105]]

    thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the
    vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
      When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the
    Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of
    election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any
    State may empower the executive

      This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or
    term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the
    Constitution.

    Sec. 237. Filling vacancies in the Senate.

      Senator  Rebecca
    L. Felton, appointed during the recess of the Senate on October 3, 1922,
    to fill a vacancy, was the first woman to sit in the Senate (VI, 156).
    Senator Walter F. George was elected to fill the vacancy on Novem-
    ber 7, 1922. Mrs. Felton took the oath of office on November 21, 1922,
    and Senator George took the oath November 22, 1922 (VI, 156). Discussion
    as to the term of service of a Senator appointed by a State executive to
    fill a vacancy (VI, 156).

    Sec. 238. Qualifications of electors.

      The  right of an
    elector to vote for a Senator is fundamentally derived from the United
    States Constitution (United States v. Aczel 219 F.2d 917 (1915)) and may
    not be denied in a discriminatory fashion (Chapman v. King, 154 F.2d 460
    (1946), cert. denied, 327 U.S. 800 (1946); Forssenius v. Harman, 235 F.
    Supp. 66 (1964), affd., 380 U.S. 529 (1965)).

                         AMENDMENT XVIII.\9\

    [[Page 106]]

    cating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation
    thereof from the United States and all territories subject to the
    jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sec. 239. Prohibition of intoxicating
    liquors.

      Section 1.  [After one year from the ratification of this article the
    manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxi

      \9\See amendment XXI, repealing this
    amendment. The 18th amendment to the Constitution of the United
    States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the
    65th Congress on December 18, 1917, and was declared in a proclamation
    by the Secretary of State dated January 29, 1919, to have been ratified
    by the legislatures of 36 of the 48 States. The dates of these
    ratifications were: Mississippi, January 8, 1918; Virginia, January 11,
    1918; Kentucky, January 14, 1918; North Dakota, January 25, 1918; South
    Carolina, January 29, 1918; Maryland, February 13, 1918; Montana,
    February 19, 1918; Texas, March 4, 1918; Delaware, March 18, 1918; South
    Dakota, March 20, 1918; Massachusetts, April 2, 1918; Arizona, May 24,
    1918; Georgia, June 26, 1918; Louisiana, August 3, 1918; Florida,
    December 3, 1918; Michigan, January 2, 1919; Ohio, January 7, 1919;
    Oklahoma, January 7, 1919; Idaho, January 8, 1919; Maine, January 8,
    1919; West Virginia, January 9, 1919; California, January 13, 1919;
    Tennessee, January 13, 1919; Washington, January 13, 1919; Arkansas,
    January 14, 1919; Kansas, January 14, 1919; Alabama, January 15, 1919;
    Colorado, January 15, 1919; Iowa, January 15, 1919; New Hampshire,
    January 15, 1919; Oregon, January 15, 1919; Nebraska, January 16, 1919;
    North Carolina, January 16, 1919; Utah, January 16, 1919; Missouri,
    January 16, 1919; Wyoming, January 16, 1919. Ratification was completed
    on January 16, 1919. The amendment was subsequently ratified by
    Minnesota, January 17, 1919; Wisconsin, January 17, 1919; New Mexico,
    January 20, 1919; Nevada, January 21, 1919; New York, January 29, 1919;
    Vermont, January 29, 1919; Pennsylvania, February 25, 1919; Connecticut,
    May 6, 1919; and New Jersey, March 9, 1922. Rhode Island rejected the
    amendment.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent
    power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

      Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been
    ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the
    several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from
    the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.]

                          AMENDMENT XIX.\10\

    Sec. 240. Womens suffrage.

      The  right of citizens
    of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the
    United States or by any State on account of sex.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [[Page 107]]

      \10\The 19th amendment to the Constitution of the United
    States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the
    66th Congress on June 5, 1919, and was declared in a proclamation by the
    Secretary of State dated August 26, 1920, to have been ratified by the
    legislatures of 36 of the 48 States. The dates of these ratifications
    were: Illinois, June 10, 1919 (and that State readopted its resolution
    of ratification June 17, 1919); Michigan, June 10, 1919; Wisconsin, June
    10, 1919; Kansas, June 16, 1919; New York, June 16, 1919; Ohio, June 16,
    1919; Pennsylvania, June 24, 1919; Massachusetts, June 25, 1919; Texas,
    June 28, 1919; Iowa, July 2, 1919; Missouri, July 3, 1919; Arkansas,
    July 28, 1919; Montana, August 2, 1919; Nebraska, August 2, 1919;
    Minnesota, September 8, 1919; New Hampshire, September 10, 1919; Utah,
    October 2, 1919; California, November 1, 1919; Maine, November 5, 1919;
    North Dakota, December 1, 1919; South Dakota, December 4, 1919;
    Colorado, December 15, 1919; Kentucky, January 6, 1920; Rhode Island,
    January 6, 1920; Oregon, January 13, 1920; Indiana, January 16, 1920;
    Wyoming, January 27, 1920; Nevada, February 7, 1920; New Jersey,
    February 9, 1920; Idaho, February 11, 1920; Arizona, February 12, 1920;
    New Mexico, February 21, 1920; Oklahoma, February 28, 1920; West
    Virginia, March 10, 1920; Washington, March 22, 1920; Tennessee, August
    28, 1920. Ratification was completed on August 28, 1920. The amendment
    was subsequently ratified by Connecticut, September 14, 1920 (and that
    State reaffirmed on September 21, 1920); Vermont, February 8, 1921;
    Delaware, March 6, 1923 (after having rejected the amendment on June 2,
    1920); Maryland, March 29, 1941 (after having rejected the amendment on
    February 24, 1920; ratification certified February 25, 1958); Virginia,
    February 21, 1952 (after having rejected the amendment February 12,
    1920); Alabama, September 8, 1953 (after having rejected the amendment
    September 22, 1919); Florida, May 13, 1969; South Carolina, July 1, 1969
    (after having rejected the amendment on January 28, 1920); Georgia,
    February 20, 1970 (after having rejected the amendment on July 24,
    1919); Louisiana, June 11, 1970 (after having rejected it on July 1,
    1920); North Carolina, May 6, 1971; Mississippi, March 22, 1984 (after
    having rejected the amendment on March 29, 1920).

      Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
    legislation.

                          AMENDMENT XX.\11\

    [[Page 108]]

    tives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms
    would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of
    their successors shall then begin.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sec. 241. Commencement of terms of Pres., Vice
    Pres., Senators, and Representatives.

      Section 1.  The terms of the President and
    Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the
    terms of Senators and Representa

      \11\See article I, section 4 of the Constitution.
    The 20th amendment to the Constitution was proposed to the
    legislatures of the several States by the 72d Congress, on March 3,
    1932, and was declared in a proclamation by the Secretary of State dated
    February 6, 1933, to have been ratified by the legislatures of 36 of the
    48 States. The dates of these ratifications were: Virginia, March 4,
    1932; New York, March 11, 1932; Mississippi, March 16, 1932; Arkansas,
    March 17, 1932; Kentucky, March 17, 1932; New Jersey, March 21, 1932;
    South Carolina, March 25, 1932; Michigan, March 31, 1932; Maine, April
    1, 1932; Rhode Island, April 14, 1932; Illinois, April 21, 1932;
    Louisiana, June 22, 1932; West Virginia, July 30, 1932; Pennsylvania,
    August 11, 1932; Indiana, August 15, 1932; Texas, September 7, 1932;
    Alabama, September 13, 1932; California, January 4, 1933; North
    Carolina, January 5, 1933; North Dakota, January 9, 1933; Minnesota,
    January 12, 1933; Montana, January 13, 1933; Nebraska, January 13, 1933;
    Oklahoma, January 13, 1933; Arizona, January 13, 1933; Kansas, January
    16, 1933; Oregon, January 16, 1933; Wyoming, January 19, 1933; Delaware,
    January 19, 1933; Washington, January 19, 1933; South Dakota, January
    20, 1933; Tennessee, January 20, 1933; Iowa, January 20, 1933; Idaho,
    January 21, 1933; New Mexico, January 21, 1933; Ohio, January 23, 1933;
    Utah, January 23, 1933; Missouri, January 23, 1933; Georgia, January 23,
    1933. Ratification was completed on January 23, 1933. The amendment was
    subsequently ratified by Massachusetts, January 24, 1933; Wisconsin,
    January 24, 1933; Colorado, January 24, 1933; Nevada, January 26, 1933;
    Connecticut, January 27, 1933; New Hampshire, January 31, 1933; Vermont,
    February 2, 1933; Maryland, March 24, 1933; Florida, April 26, 1933.

      The ratification of this amendment to the Constitution shortened the
    first term of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Vice President John N.
    Garner, and the terms of all Senators and Representatives of the 73d
    Congress.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sec. 242. Meeting of Congress.

      Section 2.  The Congress shall
    assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at
    noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a
    different day.

    [[Page 109]]

    20th amendment, see Sec. 6, supra (accompanying art. I, sec. 2, cl. 1),
    and Deschler, ch. 1.
      Prior to the ratification of the 20th amendment Congress met on the
    first Monday in December as provided in article I, section 4, of the
    Constitution. For discussion of the term of Congress prior to and
    pursuant to the

      Pursuant to section 2 of the 20th amendment, a regular session of a
    Congress must begin at noon on January 3 of every year unless Congress
    sets a different date by law, and if the House is in session at that
    time the Speaker declares the House adjourned sine die without a motion
    from the floor, in order that the next regular session of that Congress,
    or the first session of the next Congress (as the case may be) may
    assemble at noon on that day (Jan. 3, 1981, p. 3774; Jan. 3, 1996, pp.
    35, 36).

    -  Section 3. <> If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of
    the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President
    elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen
    before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President
    elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall
    act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the
    Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a Presi

    [[Page 110]]

    dent elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring
    who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to
    act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a
    President or Vice President shall have qualified.

    Sec. 243. Laws appointing different day for
    convening.

      Since  ratification, laws appointing a different day for
    assembling have been enacted as follows: Public Law 74-120, Jan. 5,
    1937; Public Law 77-395, Jan. 5, 1942; Public Law 77-819, Jan. 6, 1943;
    Public Law 78-210, Jan. 10, 1944; Public Law 79-289, Jan. 14, 1946;
    Public Law 80-358, Jan. 6, 1948; Public Law 82-244, Jan. 8, 1952; Public
    Law 83-199, Jan. 6, 1954; Public Law 83-700, Jan. 5, 1955; Public Law
    85-290, Jan. 7, 1958; Public Law 85-819, Jan. 7, 1959; Public Law 86-
    305, Jan. 6, 1960; Public Law 87-348, Jan. 10, 1962; Public Law 87-864,
    Jan. 9, 1963; Public Law 88-247, Jan. 7, 1964; Public Law 88-649, Jan.
    4, 1965; Public Law 89-340, Jan. 10, 1966; Public Law 89-704, Jan. 10,
    1967; Public Law 90-230, Jan. 15, 1968; Public Law 91-182, Jan. 19,
    1970; Public Law 91-643, Jan. 21, 1971; Public Law 92-217, Jan. 18,
    1972; Public Law 93-196, Jan. 21, 1974; Public Law 93-553, Jan. 14,
    1975; Public Law 94-186, Jan. 19, 1976; Public Law 94-494, Jan. 4, 1977;
    Public Law 95-594, Jan. 15, 1979; Public Law 96-566, Jan. 5, 1981;
    Public Law 97-133, Jan. 25, 1982; Public Law 98-179, Jan. 23, 1984;
    Public Law 99-379, Jan. 21, 1986; Public Law 99-613, Jan. 6, 1987;
    Public Law 100-229, Jan. 25, 1988; Public Law 101-228, Jan. 23, 1990;
    Public Law 102-475, Jan. 5, 1993; Public Law 103-395, Jan. 4, 1995;
    Public Law 104-296, Jan. 7, 1997; Public Law 105-140, Jan. 27, 1998;
    Public Law 105-350, Jan. 6, 1999; Public Law 106-127, Jan. 24,
    2000; Public Law 107-328, Jan. 7, 2003.

    Sec. 245. Statutory succession and the 25th
    amendment.

      Congress  provided by law in 1947 for the performance of the duties
    of the President in case of removal, death, resignation or inability,
    both of the President and Vice President (3 U.S.C. 19). Earlier
    succession statutes covering the periods 1792-1886 and 1887-1948 can be
    found in 18 Stat. 21, and 24 Stat. 1, respectively. Also see the 25th
    amendment to the Constitution, relating to vacancies in the
    Office of Vice President and Presidential inability.

      Prior to the 20th amendment there was no provision in the Constitution
    to take care of a case wherein the President-elect was disqualified or
    had died.

    Sec. 246. Congress to provide for case wherein
    death occurs among those from whom House chooses a President.

      Section 4.  The
    Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the
    persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President
    whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the
    case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose
    a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon
    them.

      The above section changes the 12th amendment insofar as it gives
    Congress the power to provide by law the manner in which the House
    should proceed in the event no candidate had a majority and one of the
    three highest on the list of those voted for as President had died.

      Section 5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of
    October following the ratification of this article.

    [[Page 111]]

    ment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the
    several States within seven years from the date of its submission.

      Section 6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been
    ratified as an amend

                          AMENDMENT XXI.\12\

    Sec. 247. Repeal of prohibition.

      Section 1.  The eighteenth
    article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby
    repealed.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      \12\The 21st amendment to the Constitution of the United
    States was proposed to conventions of the several States by the 72d
    Congress on February 20, 1933, and was declared in a proclamation by the
    Acting Secretary of State dated December 5, 1933, to have been ratified
    by conventions in 36 of the 48 States. The dates of these ratifications
    were: Michigan, April 10, 1933; Wisconsin, April 25, 1933; Rhode Island,
    May 8, 1933; Wyoming, May 25, 1933; New Jersey, June 1, 1933; Delaware,
    June 24, 1933; Massachusetts, June 26, 1933; Indiana, June 26, 1933; New
    York, June 27, 1933; Illinois, July 10, 1933; Iowa, July 10, 1933;
    Connecticut, July 11, 1933; New Hampshire, July 11, 1933; California,
    July 24, 1933; West Virginia, July 25, 1933; Arkansas, August 1, 1933;
    Oregon, August 7, 1933; Alabama, August 8, 1933; Tennessee, August 11,
    1933; Missouri, August 29, 1933; Arizona, September 5, 1933; Nevada,
    September 5, 1933; Vermont, September 23, 1933; Colorado, September 26,
    1933; Washington, October 3, 1933; Minnesota, October 10, 1933; Idaho,
    October 17, 1933; Maryland, October 18, 1933; Virginia, October 25,
    1933; New Mexico, November 2, 1933; Florida, November 14, 1933; Texas,
    November 24, 1933; Kentucky, November 27, 1933; Ohio, December 5, 1933;
    Pennsylvania, December 5, 1933; Utah, December 5, 1933. The amendment
    was subsequently ratified by Maine on December 6, 1933; Montana, August
    6, 1934. The convention held in the State of South Carolina on December
    4, 1933, rejected the 21st amendment.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sec. 248. Transportation into States
    prohibited.

      Section 2.  The transportation or importation into any State,
    Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use
    therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is
    hereby prohibited.

    [[Page 112]]

    within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States
    by the Congress.

      Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been
    ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the
    several States, as provided in the Constitution,

                         AMENDMENT XXII.\13\

    [[Page 113]]

    President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative
    from holding the office of President or acting as President during the
    remainder of such term.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sec. 249. No person shall be elected President more
    than twice.

      Section 1.  No person shall be elected to the office of the President
    more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or
    acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some
    other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the
    President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person
    holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the
    Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office
    of President, or acting as

      \13\The 22d amendment to the Constitution of the United
    States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the
    80th Congress on March 24, 1947, and was declared by the Administrator
    of General Services, in a proclamation dated March 1, 1951, to have been
    ratified by the legislatures of 36 of the 48 States. The dates of these
    ratifications were: Maine, March 31, 1947; Michigan, March 31, 1947;
    Iowa, April 1, 1947; Kansas, April 1, 1947; New Hampshire, April 1,
    1947; Delaware, April 2, 1947; Illinois, April 3, 1947; Oregon, April 3,
    1947; Colorado, April 12, 1947; California, April 15, 1947; New Jersey,
    April, 15, 1947; Vermont, April 15, 1947; Ohio, April 16, 1947;
    Wisconsin, April 16, 1947; Pennsylvania, April 29, 1947; Connecticut,
    May 21, 1947; Missouri, May 22, 1947; Nebraska, May 23, 1947; Virginia,
    January 28, 1948; Mississippi, February 12, 1948; New York, March 9,
    1948; South Dakota, January 21, 1949; North Dakota, February 25, 1949;
    Louisiana, May 17, 1950; Montana, January 25, 1951; Indiana, January 29,
    1951; Idaho, January 30, 1951; New Mexico, February 12, 1951; Wyoming,
    February 12, 1951; Arkansas, February 15, 1951; Georgia, February 17,
    1951; Tennessee, February 20, 1951; Texas, February 22, 1951; Nevada,
    February 26, 1951; Utah, February 26, 1951; Minnesota, February 27,
    1951. Ratification was completed February 27, 1951. The amendment was
    subsequently ratified by North Carolina, February 28, 1951; South
    Carolina, March 13, 1951; Maryland, March 14, 1951; Florida, April 16,
    1951; Alabama, May 4, 1951.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been
    ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of
    three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of
    its submission to the States by the Congress.

                         AMENDMENT XXIII.\14\

    Sec. 250. Representation in the Electoral College
    to the District of Columbia.

      Section 1.  The District constituting the seat of
    Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the
    Congress may direct:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [[Page 114]]

      \14\The 23d amendment to the Constitution of the United
    States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the
    86th Congress on June 17, 1960, and was declared by the Administrator of
    General Services, in a proclamation dated April 3, 1961, to have been
    ratified by the legislatures of 39 of the 50 States. The dates of these
    ratifications were: Hawaii, June 23, 1960; Massachusetts, August 22,
    1960; New Jersey, December 19, 1960; New York, January 17, 1961;
    California, January 19, 1961; Oregon, January 27, 1961; Maryland,
    January 30, 1961; Idaho, January 31, 1961; Maine, January 31, 1961;
    Minnesota, January 31, 1961; New Mexico, February 1, 1961; Nevada,
    February 2, 1961; Montana, February 26, 1961; Colorado, February 8,
    1961; Washington, February 9, 1961; West Virginia, February 9, 1961;
    Alaska, February 10, 1961; Wyoming, February 13, 1961; South Dakota,
    February 14, 1961; Delaware, February 20, 1961; Utah, February 21, 1961;
    Wisconsin, February 21, 1961; Pennsylvania, February 28, 1961; Indiana,
    March 3, 1961; North Dakota, March 3, 1961; Tennessee, March 6, 1961;
    Michigan, March 8, 1961; Connecticut, March 9, 1961; Arizona, March 10,
    1961; Illinois, March 14, 1961; Nebraska, March 15, 1961; Vermont, March
    15, 1961; Iowa, March 16, 1961; Missouri, March 20, 1961; Oklahoma,
    March 21, 1961; Rhode Island, March 22, 1961; Kansas, March 29, 1961;
    and Ohio, March 29, 1961. Ratification was completed March 29, 1961. The
    amendment was subsequently ratified by New Hampshire on March 30, 1961
    (when that State annulled and then repeated its ratification of March
    29, 1961). Arkansas rejected the amendment January 24, 1961.

      A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the
    whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the
    District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than
    the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed
    by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the
    election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a
    State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as
    provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

      Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
    appropriate legislation.

                         AMENDMENT XXIV.\15\

    [[Page 115]]

    or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall
    not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of
    failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sec. 251. Right to vote not denied for failure to
    pay poll tax.

      Section 1.  The right of citizens of the United States to vote in
    any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for
    electors for President

      \15\The 24th amendment to the Constitution of the United
    States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the
    87th Congress on August 28, 1962, and was declared by the Administrator
    of General Services, in a proclamation dated February 4, 1964, to have
    been ratified by the legislatures of 38 of the 50 States. The dates of
    these ratifications were: Illinois, November 14, 1962; New Jersey,
    December 3, 1962; Oregon, January 25, 1963; Montana, January 28, 1963;
    West Virginia, February 1, 1963; New York, February 4, 1963; Maryland,
    February 6, 1963; California, February 7, 1963; Alaska, February 11,
    1963; Rhode Island, February 14, 1963; Indiana, February 19, 1963; Utah,
    February 20, 1963; Michigan, February 20, 1963; Colorado, February 21,
    1963; Ohio, February 27, 1963; Minnesota, February 27, 1963; New Mexico,
    March 5, 1963; Hawaii, March 6, 1963; North Dakota, March 7, 1963;
    Idaho, March 8, 1963; Washington, March 14, 1963; Vermont, March 15,
    1963; Nevada, March 19, 1963; Connecticut, March 20, 1963; Tennessee,
    March 21, 1963; Pennsylvania, March 25, 1963; Wisconsin, March 26, 1963;
    Kansas, March 28, 1963; Massachusetts, March 28, 1963; Nebraska, April
    4, 1963; Florida, April 18, 1963; Iowa, April 24, 1963; Delaware, May 1,
    1963; Missouri, May 13, 1963; New Hampshire, June 12, 1963; Kentucky,
    June 27, 1963; Maine, January 16, 1964; and South Dakota, January 23,
    1964. Ratification was completed on January 23, 1964. Mississippi
    rejected the amendment on December 20, 1962.

      Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U.S. 528 (1965); Harper v. Virginia State
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966).

      Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
    appropriate legislation.

                          AMENDMENT XXV.\16\

    Sec. 252. Presidential succession and
    inability.

      Section 1.  In case of the removal of the President from office or of
    his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [[Page 116]]

      \16\The 25th amendment to the Constitution of the United
    States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the
    89th Congress on July 7, 1965, and was declared by the Administrator of
    General Services, in a proclamation dated February 23, 1967, to have
    been ratified by the legislatures of 39 of the 50 States. The dates of
    these ratifications were: Nebraska, July 12, 1965; Wisconsin, July 13,
    1965; Oklahoma, July 16, 1965; Massachusetts, August 9, 1965;
    Pennsylvania, August 18, 1965; Kentucky, September 15, 1965; Arizona,
    September 22, 1965; Michigan, October 5, 1965; Indiana, October 20,
    1965; California, October 21, 1965; Arkansas, November 4, 1965; New
    Jersey, November 29, 1965; Delaware, December 7, 1965; Utah, January 17,
    1966; West Virginia, January 20, 1966; Maine, January 24, 1966; Rhode
    Island, January 28, 1966; Colorado, February 3, 1966; New Mexico,
    February 3, 1966; Kansas, February 8, 1966; Vermont, February 10, 1966;
    Alaska, February 18, 1966; Idaho, March 2, 1966; Hawaii, March 3, 1966;
    Virginia, March 8, 1966; Mississippi, March 10, 1966; New York, March
    14, 1966; Maryland, March 23, 1966; Missouri, March 30, 1966; New
    Hampshire, June 13, 1966; Louisiana, July 5, 1966; Tennessee, January
    12, 1967; Wyoming, January 25, 1967; Iowa, January 26, 1967; Washington,
    January 26, 1967; Oregon, February 2, 1967; Minnesota, February 10,
    1967; Nevada, February 10, 1967. Ratification was completed February 10,
    1967. The amendment was subsequently ratified by Connecticut, February
    14, 1967; Montana, February 15, 1967; South Dakota, March 6, 1967; Ohio,
    March 7, 1967; Alabama, March 14, 1967; North Carolina, March 22, 1967;
    Illinois, March 22, 1967; Texas, April 25, 1967; Florida, May 25, 1967.

    Sec. 253. Confirmation by House and Senate of
    nominee to fill vice presidential vacancy.

      Section 2.  Whenever there is a vacancy
    in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice
    President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of
    both Houses of Congress.

    Sec. 254. President's declaration of
    disability.

      Section 3.  Whenever the President transmits to the President pro
    tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives
    his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and
    duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written
    declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged
    by the Vice President as Acting President.

    [[Page 117]]

    powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

    Sec. 255. Determination of Presidential inability
    and Vice President as Acting President.

      Section 4.  Whenever the Vice President
    and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive
    departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide,
    transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of
    the House of Representatives their written declaration that the
    President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office,
    the Vice President shall immediately assume the

    [[Page 118]]

      Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore
    of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his
    written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers
    and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of
    either the principal officers of the executive department or of such
    other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to
    the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of
    Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable
    to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress
    shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that
    purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after
    receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in
    session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble,
    determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is
    unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice
    President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President;
    otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his
    office.

    Sec. 256. Instances where House and Senate have
    confirmed nominee as Vice President; temporary incapacity of
    President.

      Congress  has twice performed its responsibility under section
    two of the 25th amendment. On October 13, 1973, the Speaker laid before
    the House a message from President Nixon transmitting his nomination of
    Gerald R. Ford, Representative and Minority Leader in the House of
    Representatives, to be Vice President of the United States, Vice
    President Agnew having resigned on October 10, 1973. The Speaker
    referred the nomination to the Committee on the Judiciary, which under
    clause 1(k)(14) of rule X has jurisdiction over messages and matters
    relating to Presidential succession (Oct. 13, 1973, p. 34032). The
    nomination of Mr. Ford to be Vice President was confirmed by the Senate
    on November 27, 1973 (p. 38225) and by the House on December 6, 1973 (p.
    39900), and Vice President Ford was sworn in in the Chamber of the House
    of Representatives on December 6 (p. 39925). Subsequently, President
    Nixon resigned from office by delivering his written resignation into
    the Office of the Secretary of State, pursuant to 3 U.S.C.
    20, on August 9, 1974. Pursuant to section one of the 25th amendment,
    Vice President Ford became President, and was sworn in in the East Room
    at the White House. He nominated Nelson A. Rockefeller to be Vice
    President which nomination was received in the House of Representatives
    and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary on August 20, 1974; the
    nomination was confirmed by the Senate on December 10, 1974 (p. 38936)
    and by the House on December 19, 1974 (p. 41516), and Vice President
    Rockefeller was sworn in in the Senate Chamber on December 19, 1974 (p.
    41181). On both instances, the House received the message from the
    Senate, announcing that body's confirmation of the nominee for Vice
    President, following the vote on confirmation by the House.

    [[Page 119]]

      The Chair laid before the House communications from the President
    pursuant to section 3 of this amendment as follows: First, before
    undergoing sedation for a medical procedure, declaring his impending
    inability to discharge the constitutional powers and duties of the
    Office of President and advising that the Vice President would discharge
    those responsibilities as Acting President until the President declared
    his ability to resume that role; and second (after recovering from the
    sedation and the medical procedure) declaring his ability to resume the
    discharge the constitutional powers and duties of the Office of
    President, and advising that he was doing so immediately (July 15, 1985,
    pp. 18955-56; July 8, 2002, p. ----).

                         AMENDMENT XXVI.\17\

    Sec. 257. Right to vote extended to persons 18
    years of age or older.

      Section 1.  The right of citizens of <>  the United
    States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be
    denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of
    age.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      \17\The 26th amendment to the Constitution was proposed by
    the Congress on March 23, 1971. It was declared, in a certificate of the
    Administrator of General Services, dated July 5, 1971, to have been
    ratified by the legislatures of 39 of the 50 States. The dates of
    ratification were: Connecticut, March 23, 1971; Delaware, March 23,
    1971; Minnesota, March 23, 1971; Tennessee, March 23, 1971; Washington,
    March 23, 1971; Hawaii, March 24, 1971; Massachusetts, March 24, 1971;
    Montana, March 29, 1971; Arkansas, March 30, 1971; Idaho, March 30,
    1971; Iowa, March 30, 1971; Nebraska, April 2, 1971; New Jersey, April
    3, 1971; Kansas, April 7, 1971; Michigan, April 7, 1971; Alaska, April
    8, 1971; Maryland, April 8, 1971; Indiana, April 8, 1971; Maine, April
    9, 1971; Vermont, April 16, 1971; Louisiana, April 17, 1971; California,
    April 19, 1971; Colorado, April 27, 1971; Pennsylvania, April 27, 1971;
    Texas, April 27, 1971; South Carolina, April 28, 1971; West Virginia,
    April 28, 1971; New Hampshire, May 13, 1971; Arizona, May 14, 1971;
    Rhode Island, May 27, 1971; New York, June 2, 1971; Oregon, June 4,
    1971; Missouri, June 14, 1971; Wisconsin, June 22, 1971; Illinois, June
    29, 1971; Alabama, June 30, 1971; Ohio, June 30, 1971; North Carolina,
    July 1, 1971; Oklahoma, July 1, 1971.

      Ratification was completed on July 1, 1971.

      The amendment was subsequently ratified by Virginia, July 8, 1971;
    Wyoming, July 8, 1971; Georgia, October 4, 1971.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [[Page 120]]

      Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
    appropriate legislation.

                         AMENDMENT XXVII.\18\

    Sec. 258. Timing of law varying
    congressional compensation.

      No law, varying the  compensation for the services of the
    Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of
    Representatives shall have intervened.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      \18\The 27th amendment to the Constitution was proposed on
    September 25, 1789. It was declared to have been ratified by the
    legislatures of 39 of the 50 States in a certificate of the Archivist
    dated May 18, 1992. The dates of ratification were: Maryland, December
    19, 1789; North Carolina, December 22, 1789; South Carolina, January 19,
    1790; Delaware, January 28, 1790; Vermont, November 3, 1791; Virginia,
    December 15, 1791; Ohio, May 6, 1873; Wyoming, March 6, 1978; Maine,
    April 27, 1983; Colorado, April 22, 1984; South Dakota, February 21,
    1985; New Hampshire, March 7, 1985; Arizona, April 3, 1985; Tennessee,
    May 23, 1985; Oklahoma, July 10, 1985; New Mexico, February 14, 1986;
    Indiana, February 24, 1986; Utah, February 25, 1986; Arkansas, March 6,
    1987; Montana, March 17, 1987; Connecticut, May 13, 1987; Wisconsin,
    July 15, 1987; Georgia, February 2, 1988; West Virginia, March 10, 1988;
    Louisiana, July 7, 1988; Iowa, February 9, 1989; Idaho, March 23, 1989;
    Nevada, April 26, 1989; Alaska, May 6, 1989; Oregon, May 19, 1989;
    Minnesota, May 22, 1989; Texas, May 25, 1989; Kansas, April 5, 1990;
    Florida, May 31, 1990; North Dakota, March 25, 1991; Alabama, May 5,
    1992; Missouri, May 5, 1992; Michigan, May 7, 1992; and New Jersey, May
    7, 1992.

      Ratification was completed on May 7, 1992. The amendment was
    subsequently ratified by Illinois, May 12, 1992; and California, June
    26, 1992.

      To quell speculation over the efficacy of a ratification process
    spanning two centuries, the House adopted a concurrent resolution
    declaring the ratification of the amendment (H. Con. Res. 320, 102d
    Cong., May 19, 1992, p. 11779). The Senate adopted both a separate
    concurrent resolution and a simple resolution making similar
    declarations (S. Con. Res. 120 and S. Res. 298, 102d Cong., May 20,
    1992, p. 11869). Neither House considered the concurrent resolution of
    the other. For a concurrent resolution declaring the ratification of the
    14th amendment, see July 21, 1868. For opinions of the Supreme Court
    concerning the duration of the ratification process and the
    contemporaneity of State ratifications, see Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S.
    368 (1921) and Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939).

    [[Page 121]]

    F.3d 156 (D.C. Cir 1994); Schaffer v. Clinton, 54 F. Supp.2d 1014
    (D.Colo. 1999).

      For Federal court opinions upholding congressional cost-of-living
    adjustments for Members under in the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (103
    Stat. 1716), see Boehner v. Anderson, 809 F. Supp. 38 (D.D.C. 1992),
    aff'd, 30