Hiram Revels

[A18]

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?

[A18]

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.

I see. I thought you were saying that just because they had the right to make the decision, they were therefore 'correct.'

[A18]

I see. I thought you were saying that just because they had the right to make the decision, they were therefore 'correct.'

Under the US Constitutiion, they are not capable of being incorrect with regard to that decision.

Um, they're the sole judge, but the sole judge can be wrong.

[A18]

In a legally binding manner, they are. But that doesn't mean they made a legally sound judgment. We're getting into semantics. The bottom line is that the Congress's view of a person's qualifications is what goes, but a person can disagree with Congress's reasoning. It's no answer to say, "we decide," when the objection is that you decided wrong.