Replies

Based on your interpretation of it? I feel pretty comfortable with my positions...
A decision 100 years later? So the actions in 1869 were correct based on established precedent at the time.

Chief Justice Warren gave a detailed analysis of the English historical precedents and the debates at the Constitutional Convention, and Federalist Papers, etc. by Madison, Hamilton and others. His conclusion states:

"That an unconstitutional action has been taken before surely does not render that same action any less unconstitutional at a later date. Particularly in view of the Congress' own doubts in those few cases where it did exclude members-elect, we are not inclined to give its precedents controlling weight. The relevancy of prior exclusion cases is limited largely to the insight they afford in correctly ascertaining the draftsmen's intent. Obviously, therefore, the precedential value of these cases tends to increase in proportion to their proximity to the Convention in 1787. See Myers v. United States, 272 U. S. 52, 272 U. S. 175 (1926). And what evidence we have of Congress' early understanding confirms our conclusion that the House is without power to exclude any member-elect who meets the Constitution's requirements for membership."

Based on your interpretation of it?

Oh! It's not my interpretation. It's SCOTUS's interpretation of it with which you disagree.

I feel pretty comfortable with my positions.

Ignorance is bliss!