Judge rules FBI search of Rep. William Jefferson's Capitol Hill office was constitutional

CNN ^ | 7/10/2006 | CNN

[muawiyah]

"necessary" pretty well covers everything doesn't it.

[Sam Hill]

They administer and schedule the "case load" and a million other details.

They don't take care of the heat or run the cafeteria.

[bandleader]

My only regret is that El Rushbo took this week off!!!

[mrsmith]

"None of the members of any of these 3 branches are above the law. "

No one claims they are- except silly people who want to argue against such a silly claim.

Straw men arguments are sure big with supporters of this raid.
In the judge's ruling he says the House :
" contends that even a review of the documents by the Court to determine privilege is unconstitutional. See Amicus Brief 29."
But, they didn't "contend" that:
"... Member to be present at the search and to be permitted to remove Speech or Debate pricileged materials prior to the search (subject , of course, to later judicial review as now occurs in the sdubpoena context)."

The Branches are not equal under the Constitution.
For example only one is protected by the Speech or Debate clause.

[oceanview]

yes, but the issue here is - if Justice Souter robs a bank tommorrow, and the bag of cash is in his SCOTUS office, can the FBI enter it with a search warrant?

If Congress were to act as you describe - basically defunding every agency and court that sought to hold its members accountable for civilian crimes - then the entire government might as well collapse.

[oceanview]

yes, and we are trying to stop that. giving them blanket constitutional immunity isn't the way to get it done.

[ChildOfThe60s]

I am not a "big" supporter of the raid. I do however believe it was legally proper based on the facts as I know them.

And, in my layman's opinion, our elected representatives have evolved into a protected royal class.

IMO the majority of the members of all three branches see themselves as a protected class. A little more equal as it were. And conduct business as such.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

They argued that releasing the documents and computers seized in the search while he pursues an appeal would inflict "irreparable injury" on the congressman.

Sounds like the reverse of what Ronnie Earle is saying in DeLay's case.

[mrsmith]

They're all arrogant greedy fatheads in DC, no doubt.

I guess the bright side to this brouhaha is that they're going after each other's rights instead of ours- for a change.

[ChildOfThe60s]

they're going after each other's rights instead of ours- for a change

I dunno, I suspect this is one area where they can do more than one thing at a time. Stealing [our rights and money] and screwing each other at the same time.

[muawiyah]

Alas for your theory, Congress simply does not act that way. On the other hand even the FBI admitted that the raid on an office in a Capitol Hill office was UNPRECEDENTED (in the history of the Republic).

It seems to me too many on this thread are of the false impression that "checks and balances" involves "three separate but co-equal branches of government". Actually, it doesn't ~ just a logical division of labor. Congress clearly is superior to the other bodies (the courts and the President), and the States are obviously superior to the Congress itself.

Remember, in the United States sovereignty flows "up" from the people, not "down" from the state.

And yes, Congress does, in fact, leave folks high and dry who screw with them. Usually its hidden under the rubric of "porkbarrel projects", but think about it ~ the folks getting the "pork" and the folks not getting the "pork" are two different constituencies.

It simply does not flow in equal measure to the population ~ many are left out!

Sometimes the courts in an area not in favor will not get new buildings, or modern accoutrements.

[WLR]

"None of the members of any of these 3 branches are above the law."

Many Congressmen and Senators have been convicted of corruption in the past without raiding the House or Senate offices (see encl 1).

So even before this Search your statement was true. They were not above the law.


"Clinton administration violated so many laws with impunity in order to get political enemies,"

You are referring to Impeached former President Clintoon.

You could not have proven the point any better now haven't you. His Justice Department reeked with political intrigue.
Someone who seeks to be the First Women President had what?
FBI files of enemies. Hmmm who provided those? Come on.

We have prosecuted corrupt elected official in the past without entering the offices of a sitting Congress.

The wacky , awful, vain glorious Senators are our elected officials such as the are.

Our often Goofy and mostly short sighted Representatives are our closest relationship to Government.

There are a lot of them. On a good day dealing with them is like herding cats and that is exactly the way it is supposed to be.

Those who support this raid are unknowing stripping power from the elected Representatives of themselves. A very Bad idea.


W





1.
http://www.caught.net/prose/corrupti.htm#Congressmen

(1) United States v. Mitchell, 141 F. 666 (D. Or. 1905): Senator Mitchell caught in land fraud scheme; although he died before trial, Rep. John Williamson was convicted, but I found no appeal. See related case, United States v. Booth, 148 F. 112 (D. Or. 1906).

(2) Burton v. United States, 202 U.S. 344, 26 S.Ct. 688 (1905): Postmaster was causing trouble for a company who paid Sen. Burton for help.

(3) Curley v. United States, 160 F.2d 229 (D.C. Cir. 1947): Congressman involved in WW II fraud scheme.

(4) May v. United States, 175 F.2d 994 (D.C. Cir. 1949): Congressman convicted for taking bribes.

(5) Bramblett v. United States, 231 F.2d 489 (D.C. Cir. 1956): Congressman convicted of false claims in employee kickback scheme.

(6) United States v. Johnson, 337 F.2d 180 (4th Cir. 1964).

(7) United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S. 169, 86 S.Ct. 749 (1966): Congressman convicted of conspiracy to defraud US; Congressman Frank Boykin also convicted; see United States v. Johnson, 215 F.Supp. 300 (D.Md. 1963).

(8) United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501, 92 S.Ct. 2531 (1972): Senator indicted and ultimately convicted of taking bribes; see related case, United States v. Anderson, 509 F.2d 312 (D.C. Cir. 1974).

(9) United States v. Dowdy, 479 F.2d 213 (4th Cir. 1973): Rep. convicted for taking bribes.