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 ...
If you think Hastert and the rest of the leadership didn't know that Jefferson was refusing to comply with a supeona, you must have a stash of the "Really Good Stuff". They knew, they chose not to act, forcing the Executive branch to act in what appeared to be a unilateral manner.
" ...it's the what constitutes 'privileged documents' argument I'm suspicious of, where are you going to draw the line there?"
From Gravel: "those things generally said or done in the House or the Senate in the performance of official duties "
Good find. As I stated earlier, the Congressmen are blowing smoke. The Constitution provides no immunity concerning the commission of felonies.
They are looking for patterns. How many times does one misdial the same wrong number over a period of time?
No one is disputing that "The precedent is already there (Brewster) that members of Congress are not except from enforcement of laws against felonies".
BTW a question: the search team refused to allow Jefferson's lawyer to be present during the search, (or the House Counsel or even the Seargent At Arms, which is probably what got Hastert so upset). Isn't one's lawyer usually allowed at the search if he's there and asks?
The President is not a King. He's an elected official just as much as is any Congressman or Senator. Unlike them, he's subject to term limits. Funny thing about that, when Congress (Republicans IIRC) was all hot to limit the terms of Presidents, they neglected to limit their own terms. In this case, as in so many others, sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander.
I knew it wasn't quite right, but my brain just wouldn't get it together. :-( I should have spelled it precedent.
The Constitution is silent on where they can be arrested. It states what they can be arrested for and for some of what they cannot, namely anything they say in debates, or write into laws. Thus the term "Speech and Debate" clause, used to refer to that part of Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution.
They are, he's misinformed. They are also monitored without a warrant, when one end of the connection is located outside the US. Comes under both the President's inherent powers as Commander in Chief, and under the Congressional resolution authorizing the President to use the military of the United States to prevent another terrorist attack.
However if the person on the US end then calls another US number, a court order is required to monitor that conversation, but the collecting the fact that the number is dialed does not. In principal it's no different than watching you as you walk down the street, and observing who you visit or speak with. If you speak with known terrorists, expect to explain yourself, voluntarily or by court order.
That's the key, the powers have not been expanded, merely exercised in a manner appropriate to modern times.
Isn't one's lawyer usually allowed at the search if he's there and asks? This wasn't some terrible error is it?
I think WT was refewrring to the extremely rare case where someone in the US accidentally dials a terroist c`onnected number and gets a court sanctioned monitoring as a result of the accidental wrong number. I don't yet understand how the FBI or NSA will know it was a 'wrong number' without monitoring further.
A President appointed member of the Executive Branch threatening to resign unless they can increase the power and authority of the Executive. Then the head of the Executive Branch (the President) "working to resolve the issue" is a little too self serving for my taste.
This is a big issue and very much a power play by the Executive Branch.
I do not like the Executive usurping the autonomy and independence of the Legislative. This is exactly what they have done in assuming the power to invade the Offices of the Legislative Branch even if in collaboration with the Judiciary.
I for one hope the House seriously fights this all the way.
They are not supposed to all be "buddies" and a working animosity and mild distrust between branches is probably a benefit to average Americans.
I also think there are plenty of ways for the Enforcement folks to acquire evidence of wrongdoing or corruption of our elected officials without 'Crossing the Rubicon" rifling the files or entering the offices of our elected officials.
Jefferson’s guilt or innocence is irrelevant. This is not about one elected person.
We have seen in the past how the lawyers in the enforcement community have "gamed" new laws choosing to pursue the best case (most egregious, least sympathetic defendant) first in order to secure a questionable “precedent” upon which to build future cases which are far less clear cut.
I can see a future Administration invading the offices of the legislative during an impeachment proceeding or critical vote.
(I use Clintoon as my low in moral and legal potentialities by the Executive)
Then we really would have a Constitutional Crisis.
That is why our Founders put our elected officials out of reach of the Executive while they are doing their appointed jobs. A circumstance which has increasingly been encroached upon by the Executive.
I am convinced this is a bad thing and portends ill for the future if allowed to stand.
Wm
executive
If I read this correctly they CANNOT be arrested in their respective House or to and from EXCEPT for treason, felony and breach of the peace. Which in my book just about covers most crimes except petty ones so I would say they could be arrested in the House.
Absolute total NONSENSE. Utter and complete manufacture DNC propaganda. A Congressperson is NOT above the Law simply by virtue of holding their job. They are still SUBJECT to law enforcement (Executive) and the Judiciary. Checks and Balances?> Heard of it?
You cannot arrest them to prevent them from going to a vote or a debate. That is ALL this means. T IS NOT a blanket exemption to Congress to ignore following the law. You are invoking a "Right" that is NO way involved IN this matter. No one prevented the Congressman from doing his job. His office is NOT a sanctuary where he can hid from the rule of law simply because he is a Congress critter. Equal protection Clause? Heard of it. You are claiming special privileges for Congresscritters. That nonsense.
So, in your view, congressional members have full immunity from all illegal activities of any sort while they're in office?
At first they did, then they realized how corrupt it made them look so they backed off and said they only objected to the procedures used.
The Judge issuing the warrant included plenty of safeguards for Congressional Privilege.
As far as being careful who has this power in the future, they will not be bothered by negative precedents, and the power is already there to be abused, and is already abused. Witness the trials of Tom Delay, et. al.
American Presidents are not Kings. They are selected, indirectly at least, by the people, the same as Congressmen. They have a lot more real checks on their power as well, compared to Congress as a whole.
The Constitution does not prohibit the executive branch from applying the criminal law to individual Congressmen. Any suggestion that it does is completely at variance with the text of the relevant Constitutional provision.
The real danger is when Congress, the Executive and the Judicial branches all decide that the Constitution doesn't mean what it says. Such as "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech" and "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". As in the case of CFR and the former "Assault Weapons Ban" (although the Supreme Court managed to dodge that particular bullet, by refusing to hear challenges to the law, even though they jumped right on CFR, upholding the vast majority of it, before anyone had violated it.)
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.