[{"command":"add_css","data":[{"rel":"stylesheet","media":"all","href":"\/sites\/default\/files\/css\/css_veuEhhb1658wti0_ZAig66JOyixENU-N9zhjLQSLfOQ.css?delta=0\u0026language=en\u0026theme=heritage_theme\u0026include=eJwrTi1LzdNPzkksLq7Uy8tPSQUAPMsGtA"}]},{"command":"invoke","selector":null,"method":"openEssay","args":["10000022","\n\n\u003Carticle about=\u0022\/constitution\/articles\/1\/essays\/23\/house-journal\u0022 class=\u0022node node--type-constitution-essay node--promoted node--view-mode-embedded clearfix\u0022\u003E\n  \u003Ch1 class=\u0022title\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan\u003EHouse Journal\u003C\/span\u003E\n\u003C\/h1\u003E\n\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-location\u0022\u003E\n      Article I, Section 5, Clause 3\n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-context\u0022\u003E\n      \n            \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EEach 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.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n      \n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n      \n  \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-body\u0022\u003E\n    \n            \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EThe requirement to publish a journal of each\u003Ci\u003E \u003C\/i\u003Ehouse\u2019s proceedings occasioned little debate either in the Constitutional Convention or at the ratifying conventions. The British provenance of the practice was well established. The official House of Lords Journal and House of Commons Journal had begun in the early sixteenth century, but the \u201cParliament Rolls of Medieval England\u201d stretched back much further into the thirteenth century. Parliament\u2019s journals, however, merely summarized the activities of each house: the recording of bills proposed, votes counted, and bills passed. Only beginning in 1771 was there a concerted effort to have the actual debates set down, which Parliament finally acceded to in 1803.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EAlthough Justice Joseph Story stated in his \u003Ci\u003ECommentaries on the Constitution of the United States \u003C\/i\u003E(1833), \u201cThe object of the whole clause is\u003Ci\u003E \u003C\/i\u003Eto ensure publicity to the proceedings of the legislature, and a correspondent responsibility of the members to their respective constituents,\u201d the Framers in fact did not require the recording of debates but only the basic proceedings as had been the previous British practice. In fact, the official journals of each house contain a list of the bills and resolutions that are introduced, but they do not normally include the text. Instead, in the early decades of the republic, newspaper reporters, either from the galleries or more frequently from the floor, attempted to record or summarize debates for their publications.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EMoreover, there was a provision for secrecy in the clause, which stirred much controversy. At the Constitutional Convention, Oliver Ellsworth unsuccessfully moved to have the secrecy option deleted, while at the Virginia ratifying convention, Patrick Henry railed, \u201cThe liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.\u201d Others feared that, even aside from the secrecy provision, the permission to publish a journal \u201cfrom time to time\u201d would allow either branch of Congress to conceal its doings. James Madison assured his fellow Virginians that the discretion was only to allow flexibility for the purposes of accuracy and convenience.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EThe secrecy provision applies to whether the House or the Senate will have its daily proceedings accessible to the public. Both history and judicial opinion have determined that each house possesses complete discretion over what proceedings shall be secret. \u003Ci\u003EField v. Clark\u003C\/i\u003E (1892). For the first twenty years of the country, secret sessions were frequent. Beginning with the War of 1812, however, both houses have kept most of their proceedings open to the public. The Senate is most likely to hold secret sessions, but over the last seventy-five years, it has done so only during debates over impeachment, classified information, and national defense. The Senate did keep its committee sessions closed, however, until the 1970s.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EIn 1834, Joseph Gales and William Seaton began the commercially published \u003Ci\u003EAnnals of\u003C\/i\u003E \u003Ci\u003ECongress. \u003C\/i\u003EIts formal title is\u003Ci\u003E The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States. \u003C\/i\u003EPart of \u003Ci\u003EThe Annals\u003C\/i\u003E consisted of reports of the First Congress from Thomas Lloyd, a shorthand writer, who published his record of debates in \u003Ci\u003EThe Congressional Register, \u003C\/i\u003Ebut whose product\u003Ci\u003E \u003C\/i\u003Ehas been termed \u201cincomplete and unreliable.\u201d Unfortunately, Lloyd was often intoxicated when he took notes, and a later comparison of his notes to what he published in \u003Ci\u003EThe Congressional Register\u003C\/i\u003E show \u201conly slight resemblance\u201d between the two. \u003Ci\u003EThe Annals \u003C\/i\u003Ealso compiled selected paraphrased\u003Ci\u003E \u003C\/i\u003Eremarks of the Members of Congress in their speeches and debates gathered from newspaper accounts. The project took twenty-two years to complete, and when finished, covered the years from 1789 to 1824. Congress began underwriting the project in 1849. Meanwhile, in 1824, Gales and Seaton attempted to record contemporaneous debates and publish them in the \u003Ci\u003ERegister of the\u003C\/i\u003E \u003Ci\u003EDebates in Congress\u003C\/i\u003E, which continued until 1837.\u003Ci\u003E \u003C\/i\u003EBoth publications reported Members\u2019 remarks in the third person.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EA competitive private publication, \u003Ci\u003EThe Congressional Globe\u003C\/i\u003E, began in 1833. Published by\u003Ci\u003E \u003C\/i\u003EFrancis Blair and John C. Rives, it did not at first attempt to include debates verbatim, but only summaries. Reportedly, as Gales and Seaton were Whigs, and Blair and Rives Democrats, partisanship marred the objectivity of \u003Ci\u003EThe Globe\u003C\/i\u003E\u2019s editing. Later, \u003Ci\u003EThe Globe\u003C\/i\u003E attempted to record Members\u2019 statements verbatim and in the first person. The publication continued until 1873, at which time Congress initiated \u003Ci\u003EThe Congressional Record\u003C\/i\u003E. The now official \u003Ci\u003ERecord\u003C\/i\u003E reports the debates on the floor of each House nearly verbatim, and it can also include undelivered remarks and documents. A federal judge has held that the rules allowing a Member of Congress to edit his remarks before publication are unreviewable by the courts. \u003Ci\u003EGregg\u003C\/i\u003E \u003Ci\u003Ev. Barrett \u003C\/i\u003E(1985).\u003C\/p\u003E\n\n\u003Cp\u003EMedia access continues to be a major method for the political accountability of the House and Senate. In the very early years, as noted, newspaper reporters normally had free access to the floor to report on or record the statements of the Members. In recent years, radio and television have increased the public\u2019s access to Congress\u2019s proceedings.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n      \n  \u003C\/div\u003E\n\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--media\u0022\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--photo\u0022 style=\u0022background-image: url(\/sites\/default\/files\/David_Forte.jpg)\u0022\u003E\u003C\/div\u003E\n            \u003C\/div\u003E\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--info\u0022\u003E\n              \u003Ch4 class=\u0022con-essay-author--name\u0022\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022http:\/\/facultyprofile.csuohio.edu\/csufacultyprofile\/detail.cfm?FacultyID=D_FORTE\u0022\u003EDavid F. Forte\u003C\/a\u003E\n                  \u003C\/h4\u003E\n                  \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-author--job\u0022\u003E\n         Professor, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law\n      \u003C\/div\u003E\n            \u003C\/div\u003E\n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022con-essay-tabs\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cul data-tabs class=\u0022tabs\u0022\u003E\n        \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-10000022-taba\u0022\u003EFurther Reading\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n        \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-10000022-tabb\u0022\u003ECase Law\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n        \u003Cli class=\u0022button-more thirds\u0022\u003E\u003Ca data-tab href=\u0022#node-10000022-tabc\u0022\u003ERelated Essays\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/li\u003E\n      \u003C\/ul\u003E\n\n      \u003Cdiv data-tabs-content\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv data-tabs-pane class=\u0022tabs-pane\u0022 id=\u0022node-10000022-taba\u0022\u003E\n          \n      \u003Cdiv\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EN. David Bleisch, \u003Ci\u003EThe Congressional Record and the First Amendment: Accuracy Is the Best Policy\u003C\/i\u003E, 12 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. (1985)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp style=\u0022margin-left:16px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-11.95pt\u0022\u003EJames H. Huston, \u003Ci\u003EThe Creation of the Constitution:\u003C\/i\u003E \u003Ci\u003EThe Integrity of the Documentary Record\u003C\/i\u003E, 65\u003Ci\u003E \u003C\/i\u003ETEX.\u003Ci\u003E \u003C\/i\u003EL. REV. 1 (1986)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp style=\u0022margin-left:16px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-11.95pt\u0022\u003ERichard J. McKinney, \u003Ci\u003EAn Overview of the Congressional\u003C\/i\u003E \u003Ci\u003ERecord and Its Predecessor \u003C\/i\u003EPublications, in 46\u003Ci\u003E \u003C\/i\u003ELAW\u003Ci\u003E \u003C\/i\u003ELIBR. LIGHTS 16 (Winter 2002)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp style=\u0022margin-left:16px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-11.95pt\u0022\u003EElizabeth Gregory McPherson, \u003Ci\u003EReporting the Debates\u003C\/i\u003E \u003Ci\u003Eof Congress\u003C\/i\u003E, 28\u003Ci\u003E \u003C\/i\u003EQ. J.\u003Ci\u003E \u003C\/i\u003EOF\u003Ci\u003E \u003C\/i\u003ESPEECH 141 (1942)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp style=\u0022margin-left:16px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-11.95pt\u0022\u003ESeth Barrett Tillman, \u003Ci\u003EThe Annals of Congress, the\u003C\/i\u003E \u003Ci\u003EOriginal Public Meaning of the Succession Clause, and the Problem of Constitutional Memory \u003C\/i\u003E(2011), at\u003Ci\u003E \u003C\/i\u003Ehttp:\/\/papers.ssrn.com\/sol3\/papers.cfm?abstract_ id=1524008\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n          \u003C\/div\u003E\n  \n        \u003C\/div\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv data-tabs-pane class=\u0022tabs-pane\u0022 id=\u0022node-10000022-tabb\u0022\u003E\n          \n      \u003Cdiv\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EField v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649 (1892)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n              \u003Cdiv\u003E\u003Cp\u003EGregg v. Barrett, 248 U.S. App. D.C. 347 (1985)\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n          \u003C\/div\u003E\n  \n        \u003C\/div\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv data-tabs-pane class=\u0022tabs-pane\u0022 id=\u0022node-10000022-tabc\u0022\u003E\n                      \u003Ca href=\u0022\/essay_controller\/10000026\u0022 class=\u0022use-ajax\u0022\u003ESpeech and Debate Clause\u003C\/a\u003E\n                  \u003C\/div\u003E\n      \u003C\/div\u003E\n    \u003C\/div\u003E\n  \n\u003C\/article\u003E\n"]}]