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 ...
I was using the case of the King (Charles I) to make a point.
If you can't see the historically significance you need to read a litlle history.
POST OF THE DAY.
Thanks.
That;s what the House of Commons does to the Queen or the House of Lords (can't remmber which one)...they knock on this door, the H of C guy SLAMS the door and then opens it...RIDICULOUS crap.
"If you can't see the historically significance you need to read a litlle history."
Please reconcile this with your post about the legally executed search warrant being justified.
Do you know the significance of that?>
Not really, the only powers that Congress has in influencing how the executive executes the laws it passes is the power of the purse and the power to conduct investigations. They've been known to use the power of the purse to in effect negate the laws earlier Congresses passed, without having to take the political heat for repealing or modifying those laws. Case in point: The law provides for restoration of rights after serving time, or otherwise paying the penalty, for committing a felony. One can have ones right to vote restored for example. The law provides that applications for restoration of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms be submitted to the BATFE, but Congress routinely includes in the BATFE's budget a provision forbidding the BATFE from spending any money reviewing such applications. The courts have ruled that failure to act on an application is not the same as denying it, thus foreclosing access to the courts for restoration of the right, which the law provides in the case of a denial of such an application.
When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
NO ONE is above the law...are you Denny Hastert or Matt Cooper?
yes.
What would I be hiding? You do see the problem, though. . .? That's at least one way innocent Americans can be wrongfully investigated, which was the point.
The old canard regarding surveillance, if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear, doesn't factor stupidity, clumsiness, bad faith and incompetence on the the part of the surveillors.
Maybe I am missing something in your "people's house" argument. There is a legally issued search warrant. The case law is in place that holds a critter not immune.
Bingo, we have a winner!
It proves that Congress should have the same respect for the FBI that the Mafia does. They are, after all, in the same profession.
"That's at least one way innocent Americans can be wrongfully investigated, which was the point."
How by having their voice telephone conversations taped because they are receiving incoming calls from known terrorists residing in another country?
Until William Jefferson, D-LA, no Congressman was caught on tape taking a bribe
_______________________
Not sure anyone had declined to honor a supenoa to turn over info either (I'm sure someone with a keen memory for details will know that)
Last I recalled accepting bribes of a magnitude that shock the conscience of all normal taxpayers, in return for conferring political favors, was a felony, but I stand to be corrected by my betters in this matter.
You're gravely underestimating the use of electronic equipment if you think some civil servant is hugely involved in the process.
Actually, it's not rediculous for England. After centuries of corrupt kings and even a dictatorship, it is a symbol of what they stand for. Charles I stormed Parliment in 1642 to arrest members of the oppostition group. He was eventually tried for treason and executed. IN the United States members cannot be arrested on the House or Senate floor (I believe).
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.