Editing Reconstruction Acts (section)

== Constitutionality ==
Questions of constitutionality dominated the debate over the Reconstruction Acts. On February 17, 1868, the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] upheld its [[Appellate court|appellate jurisdiction]] over circuit court review of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to a military district commander in the South, whose authority came from the Reconstruction Acts, in the case ''[[Ex parte McCardle]]''. On March 12, Representative [[James F. Wilson]] of Iowa introduced an amendment to revoke such jurisdiction by repealing provisions of the [[Habeas Corpus Act of 1867]]. The amendment passed with little objection, denying the Supreme Court jurisdiction to review the ''McCardle'' case, in which the constitutionality of congressional reconstruction was at stake.{{Sfn|Currie|2008|pp=432{{endash}}35}} Wilson later admitted that he had intended to prevent the Court from reaching a decision in ''McCardle'', following rumors that it would invalidate Reconstruction entirely.{{Sfn|Currie|2008|pp=432{{endash}}35}} Johnson vetoed this bill as well, arguing Wilson's amendment was "not in harmony with the spirit and intention of the Constitution"; this veto was overridden by wide margins in both houses.{{Sfn|Currie|2008|pp=432{{endash}}35}}

Legal scholars continue to debate the constitutionality of the Reconstruction Acts. In 2008, [[University of Chicago Law School]] professor [[David P. Currie]] argued the primary Act was unconstitutional because the former Confederate states had already established republican governments under presidential reconstruction, and Congress could not condition readmission to its chambers on the eradication of racial discrimination in voting.{{Sfn|Currie|2008|pp=422{{endash}}26}}