What was the last number you misdialed? Maybe you're under investigation and don't even know it.
Posted on 05/28/2006 6:35:29 AM PDT by MNJohnnie
WASHINGTON — The constitutional showdown that followed the FBI's search of a congressman's office came down to this: The House threatened budgetary retaliation against the Justice Department. Justice officials raised the prospect of resigning.
That scenario, as described Saturday by a senior administration official, set the stage for President Bush's intervention into the fight over the FBI's search of the office of Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., an eight-term lawmaker being investigated on bribery allegations.
During contentious conversations between the Department of Justice and the House, top law enforcement officials indicated that they'd rather quit than return documents FBI agents, armed with a warrant, seized in an overnight search of Jefferson's office, the administration official said.
Until last Saturday night, no such warrant had ever been used to search a lawmaker's office in the 219-year history of the Congress. FBI agents carted away records in their pursuit of evidence that Jefferson accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in exchange for helping set up business deals in Africa.
After the raid, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill, lodged a protest directly with Bush, demanding that the FBI return the materials. Bush struck a compromise Thursday, ordering that the documents be sealed for 45 days until congressional leaders and the Justice Department agree on what to do with them.
(Story continues below)
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Unless you vote with the democrats (and they don't vote on reasoned measures, they vote blindly and will continue to because they only hate republicans and vote for elected reps so long as a "D" is after the name) you will accomplish only the reassigning of power to the morally bankrupt Democrap party, and they will never allow you to threaten their power again so that will be the last time you 'throw them out'.
Nope, Congress is claiming to be above any external restraint. Claiming neither he Judiciary nor the Executive can in any way have a Check on Congress. That is nonsense. Checks and Balances are part of the system. NO ONE, certainly not a Congress critter, is ABOVE the law. People need to think REAL hard before they are willing to grant extra legal rights to ANYONE, not matter how much they personally like them. Hastert is WAY wrong on this.
There has been a huge disconnect over the past year between Congress and the people.
1. NSA surveillance of terrorists
2. Illegal aliens
3. The FBI raid on the office of a corrupt congressman.
I can't figure out how the scumbag politicians manage to keep stumbling over pretty easy issues.
Sorry, I did notice in your later posts that you agree the search was justified. I still disagree about Hastert position, there are other mechanisms available to keep somebody like Hilliary from engaging in partison witch hunts, selective enforcement being unconstitutional.
I guess we will find out since the Court will be the ultimate judge.
Just the usual maneuvering to protect their sorry @sses.
I only wish those in Congress would show the same zeal in protecting the individual rights of the average American as they do in attempting to retain the special privileges they reserve for themselves. Hastert comes off more as arrogant than principled in this confrontation with the Justice Dept.
We do indeed live in a Constitutional Republic and the Constitution of the United States specifically addresses the issue that the separation of powers doctrine does NOT give a Congressman immunity from criminal law.
Section 6, Article 1, of the Constitution:
"Sec. 6. 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."
The issue has also been specifically addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court:
Taking bribes is a felony and, therefore, the very words of the Constitution strip this Congressman of any claim to constitutional immunity from the investigative process, arrest, incarceration, prosecution and potential sentencing associated with such a felony.
What was the last number you misdialed? Maybe you're under investigation and don't even know it.
That's all a bunch of BS. Congress lost it's right to complain about executive branch subpoenas and warrants when it served a subpoena on the Executive Branch in United States v. Nixon. As long as it is a properly obtained subpoena, then the congressman and congress has no right to complain. People's house or not, the fact is that this was a reasonable search and seizure under the provisions of the Constitution. NOTHING in the Constitution gives a congressman any more rights than you or me except when he is on the floor of Congress, where he or she is immune from arrest except in certain circumstances, and a felony happens to be one of those certain circumstances.
Hastert is doing nothing more than protecting the crooks in congress so that they won't vote his butt out of the speakership position. There are clearly enough crooks in congress on both sides of the aisle (who are scared to death of a justice department investigation) who would be happy to vote out Hastert and put in a corrupt politician like themselves who will put up roadblocks into any investigation into their own shenannigans.
"WELCOME TO THE REAL AMERICA WHERE CRIMINALS GET TO BE
CELEBRITIES AND CELEBRITIES GET AWAY WITH MURDER."
"TO DIE FOR" Columbia Pictures
What is going on in DC is confusion without principle.
It has been going on for quite awhile but the media doesn't print it.
Not everyone is equal under the law; a whole host are above the law.
That seems to address the salient issue involved here, good post.
"A dishonest admin could use this precedent to take documents which do not pertain to a felony but political information..."
You're forgetting, there are three branches of gov't. You seem to be excluding the judiciary. Are you suggesting that the judiciary was in cohoots with the executive to overwhelm the legislative branch in this case?
Very good points and you may possibly be correct. Couldn't you, however, just reverse the party names in your comment and have an equally true statement?
Seems to me the only pitch the republicans have is to say they're not democrats, so vote for me. The republicans are just as morally bankrupt as the dems (not to mention spend as much, expand gov't, etc), hence my desire to throw them all out.
Total BS. You not only have to be able to read the Constitution but you have to know and understand WHY the Constitution says what it does.
I said that the search of Jefferson's office was justified, I also said that Hastert was right. SLAM the door in their faces -- then open it up and let them in.
Next time read the entire post.. Thank you||
BTW - I bet you are a "I will stay home rather than vote for a RINO type aren't you???
Um Dude the NSA warrantless thingy is incoming calls from foreign countries not the reverse.
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.