Bond v. Floyd

In their arguments before the Court, Georgia's attorneys held that the legislature had exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether an elected representative was qualified to take office. Thus, it could decide whether a specific representative could, without hypocrisy, take the constitutionally mandated oaths.

Bond, the state further argued, had counseled young men to violate the Selective Service laws. Obviously, "advocating violation of federal law demonstrates a lack of support for the Constitution." The state questioned how Bond could take the oath the U.S. Constitution requires.

The key question, in effect, was whether Georgia could impose a stricter standard on legislators than on other citizens.

The State declines to argue that Bond's statements would violate any law if made by a private citizen, but it does argue that even though such a citizen might be protected by his First Amendment rights, the State may nonetheless apply a stricter standard to its legislators.

Writing for a unanimous Court, Chief Justice Warren reversed the decision of the district court and ruled that the Georgia House could not refuse to seat Bond. Warren held that the Supreme Court had the jurisdiction to review the case. Bond had claimed that the Georgia House had deprived him of his free speech rights under the First Amendment. The courts had imposed these rights on the states by "incorporating" them into the Fourteenth Amendment.