House Journal - Article I, Section 5, Clause 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; 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.

COMMENT: The House Journal Clause requires each house to keep a journal of its proceedings. A journal is a book that records the actions and ideas of a person or group. This was to "ensure publicity" and "responsibility...to their...constituents" as stated by Justice Joseph Story.

To be sure, the requirement to keep a journal was not controversial; however, the provision allowing certain matters to be kept secret did cause concern. For example, Patrick Henry stated, "The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." Others were concerned that publishing only "from time to time" would further conceal their actions. However, Madison argued that it was only to allow for flexibility, accuracy, and convenience.

In any event, the journal did not publish all that useful of information; it usually published lists of bills and resolutions, etc., not word for word debates and testimony. As a result, the secrecy matter really applied to whether the proceedings would be open to the public.

Although both houses have complete discretion over what proceedings will be secret, Congress has not used its privilege of keeping information secret all that much (the Senate has used it more than the House) - keeping such matters private as to impeachment, classified information, and national defense as a general rule.

While not required to do so, in 1873 Congress implemented the Congressional Record, which includes debates and undelivered remarks and documents. In addition, journals, newspapers, radio, and television (like C-SPAN) have made most of the actions of Congress open to the public as a whole.

Primary Source - The Heritage Guide to the Constitution

Rules and Expulsion Clause - Article I, Section 5, Clause 2

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

Comment:  The Constitution permits the House and the Senate to determine their own rules of proceedings. To that end, it helped secure the independence of the Congress from the executive and judicial branch. Under this provision, representatives and senators may be expelled for inappropriate behavior with two-thirds vote. Originally, there was not a two-thirds requirement; however, Madison was concerned that the majority party would abuse its power and expel minority members if only a majority vote was required.

While impeachment is a process of accusing an official of wrongdoing before a tribunal - i.e., a president could be impeached for committing a crime. Expulsion, however, means being removed from office and is the only Constitutional tool to remove a sitting Member from office.

Qualifications and Quorum - Article1, Section 5, Clause 1

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each 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.

Comment: This provision gives to the House and Senate the power to determine whether an election of a member is valid, and whether the person elected meets the Constitutional requirements for service. This type of provision was common throughout England and America - e.g.,eight states had similar clauses in their constitutions. In any event, this clause was not litigated in court for almost 200 years until the House refused to seat Adam C. Powell because he had allegedly embezzled House funds and lied to the House. Powell sought a judicial declaration of the matter.

In Powell v. McCormack, the Court held that although Article I Section 5 provided that "Each House shall be the Judge of the...Qualifications of its own Members," Article 1 Section 2 specifies exactly three qualifications -- age, citizenship, and residency -- and that implies that there can be no more qualifications added by Congress. Moreover, in Morgan v. United States, Judge Scalia held that the House's determination as to which candidates had been elected was not within the court's power to review (i.e. the issue was nonjusticiable).

Regarding the Quorum provision, there was a two-thirds requirement under the Articles of Confederation, which was a major onstacle that they did not want anymore. As a result, the Framers settled on a majority - and some even thought that was too high as well.  The day-to-day adjournment provision allows the business of the Congress to carryon with a majority needing to be present. As a result, in todays' Congress a quorum is not usually considered, unless a member requests a quorum.

A real threat to the quorum requirement exists if a sufficient number of members decided to not attend so as to prevent a quorum and keep business from being done - e.g., Wisconsin. As a result, the Framers saw fit, thankfully, to permit each house "to compel the attendance of absent members," which passed without debate. Currently, fifteen Member of the House may order the Sergeant at Arms to compel the attendence of the absent Members.

Primary Source - The Heritage Guide to the Constitution.

Meetings of Congress- Article 1, Section 4, Clause 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."

Comment: The Framers were careful to make sure that the executive branch did not control Congress. As a result, they did not consider adopting the British model, which the executive called Parliament to meet. Although the Framers did permit a provision allowing the President to call a special session of Congress for "extraordinary Occasions" as stated in Article 2, Section 3, the Framers maintained a bright separation-of-powers line.

Initially, the Framers argued over "when" to meet. Some wanted to meet in May because Europe met during the winter, which such result would arrive in the U.S. around spring; and it would be more conducive to travel. In the end, they decided on December because it would be more convenient for business owners and would coincide with State elections.