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.
So how is that being extended to an office? (Thanks for the answer btw)
"felony, and breach of the peace" covers any kind of criminal activity.
look, we all know the intent of this article - to stop the executive from preventing the function of the legislature, by arresting its members without cause, or for cause related to operations of the body itself.
it does not apply to this case.
"Viable third party" is an oxymoron.
The key word being "viable".
http://www.freerepublic.com/~txrangerette/
But for sure you'll get lots of encouragement and advice to leave the GOP for one of several that
the dreamers have raised their hopes for...
Basically what you are saying Mr Hastert is that Mr Jefferson, as a citizen, is above the law because he happens to be a congressman? And that you and your cronies will do 'oversight' to straighten out Mr Jefferson? As you continue your charade to protect those in your protected house, let me remind you that you and all republicans can be replaced. And I have strong suspicions that that is going to occur in November. As a staunch republican supporter, who has voted for conservatives for many decades, let me also say that you and GW seem to have a death wish for the republican majority. Don't be surprised when it happens......
I read that differently.
It says they may punish, but doesn't say they are the only ones who may. It also says they are priveleged from arrest except for Felony (among others), of which bribery is most certainly one.
I don't think it means that Congress is sheltered from the Executive. After all, Congress is the judge and jury of the Executive... how can there be balance of powers if they are also exclusive judge and jury of their own? It gives them too much weight relative to the other branches.
If Hastert is right, it means Congress can impeach the president while they maintain a "gentleman's club" of corruption immune from other branches. It would give them defacto control over the government, they could extort their will from the Executive if they so conspired.
It can't be that way.
You said: I'm so sick of this crap that I don't care if democrats take the house and senate. At least we will be watching people who know how to play politics.
***
At some level I agree with you, but I don't want people in office who can play politics. I want people who have as their primary goal doing what is best for the country--which almost always is NOT playing politics.
Mark
That and to prevent members from being arrested right before a vote, thsu skewing it.
Does Congress have the power to order searches of the White House?
Not sure.
Not directly per se I would think, any such search would need to handled by Justice as part of a legal process.
Congress has a fat head syndrome. Dennis Hastert needs to go back to coaching wrestling.
Instead of leaving, you could always call them and give them what for...
What an absurd argument. You cannot hide behind the Constitution in the commission of a felony. How can you use the law to break the law?
xrp to Hastert: Whatever, fatboy.
My real response to this would get me banned.
The only real mistake was stopping at raiding ~just one~ office.
I'm quoting jpl on another thread that everyone should note:
"This is just staggering. You know the general climate of corruption is really bad when they actually have to stoop to citing "separation of powers".
Who the heck else is supposed to investigate criminality within the legislative branch, the legislature itself?"
Sounds like Hastert is worried about the FBI uncovering some of his own shenanigans.
Weren't the GOP in the minority then?
But yes, deploying the military against American citizens was a disgrace. Burning them alive was a horror... and Clinton and Reno weasled out of it with their slick talk, when Reno should've committed Hari Kari over it. It was a disgrace that people of principle, left and right and center, should have protested vigorously.
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.