Posted on 05/23/2006 5:57:29 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) told President Bush yesterday that he is concerned the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) raid on Rep. William Jefferson’s (D-La.) congressional office over the weekend was a direct violation of the Constitution.
Hastert raised concerns that the FBI’s unannounced seizure of congressional documents during a raid of Jefferson’s Rayburn office Saturday night violated the separation of powers between the two branches of government as they are defined by the Constitution.
“The Speaker spoke candidly with the president about the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s raid over the weekend,” Hastert spokesman Ron Bonjean said yesterday in confirming his boss’s remarks.
Hastert told reporters yesterday that he understands the reasons for the investigation but objected to the manner in which the raid was conducted.
“My opinion is they took the wrong path,” Hastert said. “They need to back up, and we need to go from there.”
Republican objections are independent of any facts in the corruption probe against Jefferson. Their complaints pertain solely to constitutional questions about the raid itself.
The issue is not clear-cut for both parties. Republicans have repeatedly cited the Jefferson probe as an example of Democratic malfeasance in the face of charges about their own “culture of corruption.” On the Democratic side of the aisle, the investigation itself undermines the effectiveness of their efforts to tar Republicans with the corruption issue.
Jefferson is being investigated to see if he influenced legislation in exchange for a number of elaborate, illegal payment schemes, including a single cash payment of $100,000, most of which was discovered in his freezer during a later raid of his home.
Calling the Saturday-night raid an “invasion of the legislative branch,” House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) predicted the case would eventually be resolved in the Supreme Court and hinted that Congress would take further action. The majority leader said Hastert would take the lead on the issue because he is the chief constitutional officer in the House.
“I am sure there will be a lot more said about this,” Boehner said.
The Jefferson raid is the most recent flare-up between Congress and the White House. In a statement distributed Monday night, Hastert made it clear that he was not given a heads-up about the FBI’s raid on Jefferson’s office.
In the Speaker’s lengthy statement, Hastert complained that the seizure of legislative papers, no matter how innocuous, was a violation of the “the principles of Separation of Powers, the independence of the Legislative Branch, and the protections afforded by the Speech and Debate clause of the Constitution.”
Hastert also singled out Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in that statement: “It would appear that the Attorney General himself was aware that Separation of Powers concerns existed … because in seeking the warrant the FBI suggested to the judge procedures it would follow to deal with Constitutionally protected materials.”
During a news conference with reporters, Gonzales defended the FBI raid but said he and leaders on the Hill are involved in private discussions about “what can be done to alleviate” lawmakers’ concerns.
“I obviously — personally, and the Department collectively — we have a great deal of respect for the Congress as a coequal branch of government, as a separate and independent branch of government, and [we’re] obviously sensitive to their concerns,” he said.
He noted that discussion to try to address lawmakers’ concerns began Monday evening and continued yesterday.
“We respectfully, of course, disagree with the characterization by some,” Gonzales said. “We believe … we have been very careful, very thorough in our pursuit of criminal wrongdoing, and that’s what’s going on here. We have an obligation to the American people to pursue the evidence where it exists.”
Congress has both investigative and budgetary oversight of the executive branch, but there was no word as of press time about oversight hearings into the raid or its constitutionality.
Democrats were supportive of Hastert’s criticism and appear to support the Speaker in pursuing further action.
“No member of Congress is above the law,” House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) told reporters yesterday. “I am concerned about the unprecedented exercising of authority over a separate branch of government and the execution of a search warrant without any communication with the leadership of this House.”
Hoyer said he agrees with Hastert’s concerns and was less than defensive of Jefferson.
“The institution has a right to protect itself against the executive branch going into our offices and violating what is the Speech and Debate Clause that essentially says, ‘That’s none of your business, executive branch,’” Hoyer said.
During his own briefing, Boehner joked with reporters that he was withholding his own strong reservations about the raid because of a staff request that he do so.
“I would like to say more, but I have been advised by my advisers that I shouldn’t,” Boehner said.
But after repeated questions, the majority leader expressed his full reservations about the Justice Department’s action.
“When I raise my right hand and swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States, I mean it,” Boehner said, referring to the oath members take at the beginning of each Congress. “[Justice Department employees] take the same oath, so somebody better start reading the Constitution down there.”
Leaders in both parties have said this is the first time in the 219-year history of the United States that the Justice Department has taken these actions.
Shut up Hastert. Sec 6 of article 1 of the constitution states "The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, FELONY and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.".
Somehow I think taking a $100,000 bribe is a felony or at least a breach of the peace. Also this section does NOT include the offices of congress, only the members. Assuming the files are printed on paper provided by the government the member of congress does not own them.
DUH. That didn't address your over-exuberant description of what you think happenned.
All I can think of would be to have an Officer of the House conduct the search- a member of the Seargent at Arms perhaps.
With the video and all the other evidence I think Hastert would have cooperated. But perhaps they had some good reason not to go that route.
But isn't even the judicial branch under the oversight of the House rather than the executive? For instance, Congress can set up or absolve district courts on a whim and the House has the specific authority to remove cases from the Court's jurisdiction.
It just seems to me that the founders put a lot of authority in the hands of Congress (particularly the House), authority that has been eroded over the years by both the executive and the judicial branches.
Andy McCarthy's 10:02pm (5/23/06) bite is also fascinating. Hastert and the rest of them are wrong.
That may be true but that still doesn't alter the fact that only the Executive Branch can investigate itself (Congressional investigations have no teeth as even their subpoenas can be ignored under claims of "Executive privilege" or "national security").
As far as the specific clause mentioned by Hastert, that might not be the only issue to consider here. There's still the general idea of separation of powers and whether or not the Executive Branch can raid the House of Representatives without so little as even informing the House Leadership and Chief Judicial officer. This reeks of executive arrogance.
The Tudors would be proud.
Hastert has a good point- I wish he'd refer to the Constitution more often.
DUH. But it did address your own invalid objection.
Too bad he can't find anything in there to support his viewpoint.
BTW, how do you "read" over-exuberance? I'm sitting quietly enjoying a warm glass of sweet tea. Think calm. At peace with the universe.
Methinks you might be projecting.
Pity that it seems the only time our noble leaders choose to champion the Constitution is in defense of skullduggery and scumbags. On genuine Constitutional abominations such as Campaign Finance Reform or eminent domain abuse they just can't seem to find their voices.
Just what I love. Keyboard psychologists.
No thanks, I rarely bother with polemicists.
Thanks. For some reason I expected judicial (logic) but looked it up and was also told. I am a natural blond...sorry.
Cool graphic, looks like it took a lot of work piecing it together!
Senators and Representatives are at all times subject to arrest for treason, felony, and breach of the peace. They may be held and prosecuted as private citizens for the ordinary crimes. However if they are attending the sessions of Congress, or on their way to or from such sessions, they are not subject to arrest in civil cases. Meaning that even a member who remains at home during a session of Congress enjoys this exemption. This privilege from arrest comes from Englis practice. Thus one of the means of maintaining the freedom and independence of lawmakers.
I know it still doesn't answer the constitutionality of the search.
Excuse me .. there is NO RECORD of President Bush EVER using "executive priviledge" - at least not that I know of. Clinton did it all the time - but I cannot remember a single time Bush has done that.
So if you have evidence .. bring it on!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.