Posted on 05/30/2006 11:38:26 AM PDT by RobFromGa
Q: I noticed that you were critical of the FBI serving a search warrant on Congressman Jefferson [D-La.]. In the Contract with America one of the planks stated that Congress should "...require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress."
Have you changed your mind?
- David M. Dos Palos, Calif.
Good question, David. I believe those words just as much today as I did 12 years ago when we created the Contract with America.
No one is above the law. In 1980, I voted to expel former Congressman Michael Myers (D-Pa.) from the House in 1980 for his role in the ABSCAM scandal. He was later sentenced to three years in prison. Both former Congressmen Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.) and James Traficant (D-Ohio) are currently in prison for breaking the law while in office.
Applying the law to members of Congress is not the issue. No one is defending the behavior of Rep. Jefferson, nor is anyone seeking any special privilege from prosecution or protection of evidence on his behalf. Moreover, congressional leaders have not complained about the FBI's raid on Jefferson's home where they recovered almost all of a $100,000 cash bribe from his freezer.
So, since this case seems like a slam dunk, why not let the FBI look for more evidence in the congressman's office? The FBI seemed to follow proper procedure, how is a congressional office any different from that of any other American?
The answer is at the heart of the constitutional separation of powers. An Executive Branch-directed raid on Legislative Branch offices -- even with a judicial warrant -- is fundamentally different because, unlike a home or private office, a Legislative Branch office serves governmental duties that were designed to be constitutionally independent from -- and in some cases, in opposition to -- the powers of the Executive Branch.
Moreover, the raid flies in the face of a 200-year procedure for the Executive Branch to request documents from the Legislative Branch. In this particular instance, the Justice Department abandoned this well established tradition of working with the Congress out of respect to a co-equal branch of government and instead, sent the FBI to comb through a legislative office for 18 hours without allowing a single official of the Legislative Branch to observe the search. It was the first such FBI raid in American history.
The founding fathers determined that the surest guarantor of liberty for all Americans is a government whose powers are separated among three co-equal branches, accompanied by checks and balances that permit each branch to protect itself from encroachment by the others.
The Framers' concern with an overreaching executive power goes all the way back to the English Civil War and the attempt by the English King Charles I to arrest five members of Parliament in January 1642.
Today, Congress' response to this raid will set the precedent for future attempts by the Executive Branch to expand its powers over the Legislative Branch. A vigorous defense by Congress against executive encroachment is necessary to prevent the danger of politically motivated abuses of power by the Executive Branch. Conservatives have learned all too well that the failure to check the Judicial Branch's successful expansion of powers since the 1950s has diminished the power of the Legislative Branch.
James Madison wrote on this very subject in Federalist Paper No. 48. Madison's ultimate conclusion was that constitutional provisions alone would not protect us against an unconstitutional concentration of power. His exact words: "a mere demarcation on parchment of the constitutional limits of the several [branches], is not a sufficient guard against those encroachments which lead to a tyrannical concentration of all the powers of government in the same hands."
As a co-equal branch, Congress has the power to respond legislatively in a way that would cripple the Executive Branch's ability to get anything done. While I hope it does not come to a debilitating power struggle, I believe the Legislative Branch must do all it can to protect itself from an encroachment on its constitutional powers. By protecting its independence today, Congress helps to protect the freedom of all Americans today and tomorrow. The Executive Branch can set it right by acknowledging its error and firing those responsible for the decision that led to the FBI's unprecedented raid on the People's House.
If a friend has forwarded you this message, visit HumanEventsOnline.com to sign up to receive FREE conservative news alerts from Newt Gingrich, Ann Coulter, and Robert Novak.
Who's this Newt guy?
Whats happening with McKinney? Did she get a way with assaulting a police officer?
Take a look at this.
I understood, the records had been requested for nine months, and the request ignored.
its a sickness with these people - its all about their power, they feel they become part of the "elites" when they go to Congress.
what's he going to say when the SCOTUS rules the search was legal, is he going to ask that Congress disband the Court, so it can "protect" itself?
I used to like Newt. Still respect his intellect. But he's full of sh*t on this one.
In addition, what if there was evidence that the member spied for a foreign country or was involved in other nefarious behavior, such as ape or murder? Am I to understand that Newt thinks that these offices should be sacrosanct?
Sorry, I'm not buying it. Those offices should be subject to the same warranted search rules as anyone else...otherwise, we have created a protected class.
I agree.
Your comment was less wordy than mine, but straight to the point! LOL!
Quite right. No where does the Constitution lend any credibility to his argument.
Members of Congress, when it comes to being suspected of committing a felony are no different than the rest of us with regard to equal treatment under the law.
"There is a difference between us. You think the people of this country exist to provide you with position. I think your position exists to provide those people with freedom. And I go to make sure that they have it." .
He is completely right about this issue. As long as we can all pretend that the FBI didn't spend weeks trying to get these subpeonas responded to by Jefferson, Hastert and the Seargant At Arms BEFORE going to a Federal judge. The FBI could have given notice to the House leadership that they were going to seek a subpeona but basically that would have been like yelling "We are coming in to search your office - get all the evidence out of there before we arrive!!"
I understood this too. It was not mentioned either in this statement by Newt or in the WSJ editorial. Totally ignoring this fact makes the separation of powers argument smell really bad.
It's the old Lucy football. Why didn't Hastert, Pelo., Jeff. comply with the request for docs after almost one year. Why does team values ever hand the opposition a big, ol' hammer on a silver platter. Wazzup with that A.G.! Rosa Delauro has entered the building. Viddy well me droogs.
Wasn't the request ignored for months? Or is a subpoena considered a demand instead of a request and was thus ignored for being rude?
Sadly, Newt conveniently omitted that fact. If the other two branches cannot oversee the third, there is no 'check and balance' in the three branches of government. To trust that a democrat crook would eventually turn over 'unredacted' documents subpoened through a judge is to believe 'I did not have sex with that woman' crap rhetoric. I'm severely disappointed in Newt.
Exactly. Worse, it would set a precedent where Excutive Branch offices would not be searchable by Congress.
The only word missing is SANCUARY.
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.