Posted on 05/28/2006 6:35:29 AM PDT by MNJohnnie
When two branches of the government are together, the third is going to get smacked. People who are screaming separation of powers here conveniently forget that the Judicial branch exercised its Constitutional obligation of check on the Executive, authorizing the warrant to allow the Executive to excercise its Constitutional mandate to enforce the law of the land. The fact that the property to be searched was the PUBLIC office of a Member of Congress does not, nor should it, automatically mean *hands off* because DOJ is part of the Executive branch.
Neither Janet Reno nor Bill/Hill had the ability to issue a warrant in order to seach Delay's office; that would have had to come from the Judiciary.
Yes, and from history it is obvious that is exactly what the Clause is to prevent happening to the Legislature!
The Supreme Court said of the Clause:
"...it is apparent from the history [383 U.S. 169, 181] of the clause that the privilege was not born primarily of a desire to avoid private suits such as those in Kilbourn and Tenney, but rather to prevent intimidation by the executive and accountability before a possibly hostile judiciary. ...It was not only fear of the executive that caused concern in Parliament but of the judiciary as well, for the judges were often lackeys of the Stuart monarchs, 11 levying punishment more "to the wishes of the crown than to the [383 U.S. 169, 182] gravity of the offence." "
The Executive and Judiciary have no such constitutional protection. When the Legislature and another Branch gang up, the Constitution puts no such special barrier in the way of their smacking the other Branch.
It depends on your definition of "two" and "smacked"
When Congress suspends funds for the Justice Department or the Supreme Court or "reorganizes" the lower Courts entirely, that thwacking noise you hear might just be a smack.
Checks and balances....
Best regards,
In my posts on this thread, I have never resorted to the eponyms of "This Clause" or "That Clause". I have referred to the exact wording of "Article 1, Section 6".
The search and seizure of the evidence necessary to build a bribery case is NOT analogous to the search and seizure of legislative materials.
A bribery case is proved regardless of how the accused actually debated or voted or behaved himself in Congress by proving that illegal promises were made regardless of whether or not the illegal promises were actually kept.
The legislative material is irrelevant to the bribery case and there is no need to search or seize it for evidence.
The bribery evidence is relevant to the case, cannot be considered part of the legislative process by any stretch of the imagination and can be searched and seized and is a totally separate animal from "legislative material".
I seriously doubt that the FBI was searching for "legislative material" inside of the Congressman's freezer.
But, don't take my word for it. Take it from what Chief Justice Warren E. Burger wrote in UNITED STATES v. BREWSTER, 408 U.S. 501 (1972) :
************
UNITED STATES v. BREWSTER, 408 U.S. 501 (1972)
The question is whether it is necessary to inquire into how appellee spoke, how he debated, how he voted, or anything he did in the chamber or in committee in order to make out a violation of this statute. The illegal conduct is taking or agreeing to take money for a promise to act in a certain way. There is no need for the Government to show that appellee fulfilled the alleged illegal bargain; acceptance of the bribe is the violation of the statute, not performance of the illegal promise.
Taking a bribe is, obviously, no part of the legislative process or function; it is not a legislative act. It is not, by any conceivable interpretation, an act performed as a part of or even incidental to the role of a legislator. It is not an "act resulting from the nature, and in the execution, of the office." Nor is it a "thing said or done by him, as a representative, in the exercise of the functions of that office," 4 Mass., at 27. Nor is inquiry into a legislative act or the motivation for a legislative act necessary to a prosecution under this statute or this indictment. When a bribe is taken, it does not matter whether the promise for which the bribe was given was for the performance of a legislative act as here or, as in Johnson, for use of a Congressman's influence with the Executive Branch. And an inquiry into the purpose of a bribe "does not draw in question the legislative acts of the defendant member of Congress or his motives for performing them."
Nor does it matter if the Member defaults on his illegal bargain. To make a prima facie case under this indictment, the Government need not show any act of appellee subsequent to the corrupt promise for payment, for it is taking the bribe, not performance of the illicit compact, that is a criminal act. If, for example, there were undisputed evidence that a Member took a bribe in exchange [408 U.S. 501, 527] for an agreement to vote for a given bill and if there were also undisputed evidence that he, in fact, voted against the bill, can it be thought that this alters the nature of the bribery or removes it from the area of wrongdoing the Congress sought to make a crime?
************
Yes there is because that is what the evidence is hidden in. The prosecutors knew that- it is blindingly evident- and had rules to limit their looking at those privileged documents
All that is in dispute is what rules should be.
Yes there is because that is what the evidence is hidden in. The prosecutors knew that- it is blindingly evident- and had rules to limit their looking at those privileged documents All that is in dispute is what rules should be.
All search warrents spell out the items, place and persons to be searched. The presence of other individuals or items in the area does not preclude searches from ever laying eyes on them. They simply can't rifle through them.
When the searcher found $90,000 in cash inside a freezer, it is blindingly evident that that was not "legislative material".
Exactly, and the judge and prosecutors did put restrictions in the warrant to protect the undoubtedly privileged material they knew they'd have to search through.
Hastert is just saying that those restrictions weren't sufficient for the privilege. Nothing else is in dispute.
As to the extent of the Privilege in this dispute, even under the historical view that it is mostly up to the Legislature to decide what they are the Legislature is not free to make unreasonable assertions of privilege because they will put themselves in the disdain of the voters by doing so and lose their seats.
"No, because they misdialed a number belonging to a known suspected terrorist."
Do you have personal knowledge of anyone misdialing a suspected terrorist in another country? Just asking, because I don't.
OK, after reading that quote from Hastert's site, I am wondering just HOW the search in Jefferson's office was unconstitutional. Anyone?
To me this is the defining reason that his office had to be searched for the documents.
His arrogant attitude towards a subpoena was a blatant act of a person that feels that they are above the law.
If you don't answer a subpoena, you suffer the consequences.
Even if you are part of the elite ruling class. Oops, there is no ruling class in the USA...
This needs to be brought up every time people complain about removing documents from his office. He was obviously hiding them and breaking the law by doing so.
Every story I've seen mention it, it was just a one liner , buried past halfway in the article.
No, but we are a nation of 280,000,000 people, probably 80% are constant phone users. My purpose was to show there is a way innocent Americans can be investigated, and it's possible, even probable. In my opinion, only God's direct involvement could keep it from happening. 
{Ok, the same Congress that demands the right to "investigate" everything from NSA programs to Baseball Steroids NOW trys to claim IT is above the Law. I do not think so. Simply Amazing, NOW they finaly find something in the budget they think they can cut!}
Very well said. They are going home in 2006, and it's their own doing... FOOLS!
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.