his statement attacking the Vietnam policy was held to be justiciable on the ground that it was not within the jurisdiction of the Legislature to find out whether a member was sincere in regard to his oath of the legislature. In Adam Clayton Powell v. John W. McCormack. (1969) 23 L Ed 2d 491 the disqualification by the House of a Congressman on the basis of qualification on the ground which was not in the Constitution was held to be justiciable. The Federal District Court has jurisdiction over the subject-matter of controversies arising under the Constitution. The conferment of power on each House in America to be a judge of elections is an exclusive ground of power and constitutes the House to be the sole and ultimate Tribunal. 30. The Amerian decisions show that if the House claims additional power to disqualify a member on the ground other than those stated in the Constitution judicial review against disqualification would be available. In Bond's case (1966) 17 L Ed 2d 235 (supra) disqualification was on an unconstitutional ground that his statement on Vietnam policy was a matter of free speech and expression. The court did not decide an election dispute but as a custodian of judicial power judged whether the House was acting within its power. 31. Parliament itself can also hear election disputes. That was the English practice until the Grenville Act. 1868 when Parliament conferred power on courts. Before 1770, controverted elections were tried by the whole House of Commons as party quesions. The House found that the exercise of its privilege could be submitted to a Tribunal constituted by law to secure impartiality in the administration of justice according to the laws of the land. In 1868 the jursdiction of the House in the trial of controverted elections was transferred by statute to the courts of law. The persent procedure is contained in the English Representation of the People Act, 1949. The trial is confided to judges selected from the judiciary. Provision is made in each case for constituting a rota from whom these judges are selected. The House has no cognizance of these proceedings until their determination when the judges certify their determination, in writing, to the Speaker, which is final to all intents and purposes. Trial is not a proceeding of the House. The judges are to make a report in any case where charge has been made in the petition of corrupt and illegal practice. Provision is also made for the trial of a special case. All certificates and reports of the election court are entered in the Journals of the House. Under Section 124 (5) of the English Representation of the People Act. 1949, it is the duty of the House to make orders for carrying the determination of the judges into execution. 32. Judicial review in many matters under statute may be excluded. In many cases special jurisdiction is created to deal with matters assigned to such authorities A special forum is even created to hear election disputes. A right of appeal may be conferred against such decision. If Parliament acts as the forum for determination of election disputes it may be a question of parliamentary privilege and the courts may not entertain any review from such decisions. That is because the exercise of power by the Legislature in determining disputed elections may be called legislative power. A distinction arises between what can be called the traditional judicial determination by courts and tribunals on the one hand and the peculiar jurisdiction by the legislature in determining controverted elections on the other. 33. The legal order is a system of general and individual norms connected with each other according to the principle that law regulates its own creation. Each norm