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.
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,