Article I, Section 5 states that "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members"
Thus it would seem the Senate had the right to seat Revels.
What does that have to do with anything?
Did the Senate, therefore, err in admitting Revels, or was it entitled to ignore the views of the Supreme Court?
It would seem to imply that the Senate was entitled to ignore the views of the Supreme Court. They had the right to decide whether Revels met the Constitutional requirement or not.
Poll
