FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122   123   124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   138   139  
140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   148   149   150   151   152   153   154   155   156   157   158   159   160   161   162   163   164   >>   >|  
tency of the House to prescribe any method which shall be reasonably certain to ascertain the fact."[166] The rules of the Senate provide for the ascertainment of a quorum only by a roll call,[167] but in a few cases it has held that if a quorum is present, a proposition can be determined by the vote of a lesser number of members.[168] RULES OF PROCEDURE In the exercise of their constitutional power to determine their rules of proceedings the Houses of Congress may not "ignore constitutional restraints or violate fundamental rights, and there should be a reasonable relation between the mode or method of proceeding established by the rule and the result which is sought to be attained. But within these limitations all matters of method are open to the determination of the House, * * * The power to make rules is not one which once exercised is exhausted. It is a continuous power, always subject to be exercised by the House, and within the limitations suggested, absolute and beyond the challenge of any other body or tribunal."[169] Where a rule affects private rights, the construction thereof becomes a judicial question. In United States _v._ Smith,[170] the Court held that the Senate's attempt to reconsider its confirmation of a person nominated by the President as Chairman of the Federal Power Commission was not warranted by its rules, and did not deprive the appointee of his title to the office. In Christoffel _v._ United States[171] a sharply divided Court upset a conviction for perjury in the district courts of one who had denied under oath before a House Committee any affiliation with Communism. The reversal was based on the ground that inasmuch as a quorum of the Committee, while present at the outset, was not present at the time of the alleged perjury, testimony before it was not before a "competent tribunal" within the sense of the District of Columbia Code.[172] Four Justices, speaking by Justice Jackson dissented, arguing that under the rules and practices of the House, "a quorum once established is presumed to continue unless and until a point of no quorum is raised" and that the Court was, in effect, invalidating this rule, thereby invalidating at the same time the rule of self-limitation observed by courts "where such an issue is tendered."[173] POWERS OF THE HOUSES OVER MEMBERS Congress has authority to make it an offense against the United States for a Member, during his continuance in office, to
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122   123   124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   138   139  
140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   148   149   150   151   152   153   154   155   156   157   158   159   160   161   162   163   164   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
quorum
 

present

 

States

 
United
 

method

 

rights

 

constitutional

 

tribunal

 

Committee

 

courts


perjury

 
Congress
 

invalidating

 
established
 
limitations
 

exercised

 

Senate

 

office

 

reversal

 

Communism


ground

 

affiliation

 

divided

 

appointee

 

deprive

 
Commission
 

continuance

 

warranted

 

Christoffel

 

district


conviction

 

sharply

 
denied
 

raised

 

effect

 

continue

 

POWERS

 

tendered

 

limitation

 

HOUSES


observed
 
presumed
 

practices

 

offense

 

District

 
Columbia
 

competent

 
outset
 
alleged
 

testimony