Constitution

Article I, Section 5: Rules, Quorum and Discipline in Each House

Section 5 makes each house judge of its own members, sets the quorum, lets each house write rules and expel members, and requires a journal.

4Conservative Editors · Published November 8, 2026

The text

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.

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.

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.

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.

In plain English

Clause 1: judging elections and the quorum. Each house decides disputed elections of its own members and whether a winner meets the constitutional qualifications. A majority of members is a quorum, the number needed to do business. A smaller group may adjourn day to day and compel absent members to attend.

Clause 2: rules and discipline. Each house writes its own rules of procedure, may punish members for disorderly behavior (by censure, reprimand, fine or loss of committee posts, for example), and may expel a member by a two-thirds vote. The Senate's filibuster, the House Rules Committee, and the order of business in both chambers all rest on this rulemaking power.

Clause 3: the journal. Each house keeps and publishes a journal of its proceedings, except parts that require secrecy. One-fifth of the members present can force a recorded vote, the "Yeas and Nays," on any question, so that voters can see how each member voted.

Clause 4: adjournment. During a session, neither house may adjourn for more than three days, or move elsewhere, without the other's consent. Neither chamber can shut down Congress alone.

What the Founders said

The section drew on long English and colonial practice. The House of Commons had fought for centuries to judge its own elections and discipline its own members without interference from the Crown, and the colonial assemblies claimed the same privileges against royal governors. The Framers gave each house that independence from the other branches.

The two-thirds rule for expulsion was a deliberate choice. Madison's notes of the Convention record a concern that a simple majority could expel members for political reasons; a supermajority makes expulsion a rare act requiring broad agreement. Unlike a vote to exclude a member-elect, an expulsion is not limited to the three listed qualifications.

The journal and the recorded vote served accountability. A representative's vote is a public act, and the one-fifth rule gave a minority the means to put the majority on the record.

How the courts have read it

  • United States v. Ballin (1892): each house may make its rules as it sees fit, so long as they do not ignore constitutional limits or violate fundamental rights, and there is a reasonable relation between the method and the result sought. The House could count members present but not voting toward a quorum.
  • Field v. Clark (1892): a bill signed by the presiding officers and the President and deposited as enrolled is conclusive evidence it passed; courts will not look behind it to the journals.
  • In re Chapman (1897): the Senate's power to investigate and compel testimony includes the power to have Congress punish refusal to answer.
  • Powell v. McCormack (1969): a house's power to "judge" the "Qualifications" of members is limited to the qualifications the Constitution lists; Adam Clayton Powell could not be excluded for misconduct, though he might have been expelled by two-thirds.
  • NLRB v. Noel Canning (2014): the Senate is in session when it says it is, provided it retains the capacity to act under its own rules.

Why it matters now

The rulemaking power is how each chamber governs itself, and it is easy to forget how much depends on it. The filibuster exists because the Senate's rules say so; it can be changed because the Senate's rules can be changed. Conservatives have defended the sixty-vote threshold as a brake on sweeping legislation. That defense rests on prudence, not on a constitutional command, and should be argued that way.

The recorded vote remains one of the simplest tools of self-government. Omnibus bills passed by voice vote, or thousand-page packages released hours before passage, hollow out the journal's purpose. A public that cannot see how its representatives voted cannot hold them to account.

Expulsion and discipline are also tests of each chamber's seriousness. The two-thirds rule protects the minority from being purged by the majority; it should not become a shield for members whose conduct both parties recognize as corrupt.

Latest on this topic