Posted on 06/04/2007 12:37:00 PM PDT by jrooney
Jefferson's Indictment is being shown live now on Fox News!
In the case of Jefferson, I'm not surprised that some part of the crimes occurred in suburban Virginia, so the prosecutors decided on that federal district as the venue. Surely, their chances there are better than in DC or Louisiana.
Apparantly you don’t understand that the Constitution itself constitutes a substantial part of the law. You should read it some time. If the big words are hard for you use a dictionary.
Again, show me in the constitution where a warrant cannot be served upon a congressional office. Please.
You mentioned race. I did not.
If you honestly believe that the absolutist monarch Charles I has anything to do with American law and tradition - especially when the Blackstone commentaries that the Framers looked to for guidance were firmly planted in post-Glorious Revolution jurisprudence - then it is in your best interest to refrain from critiquing others' erudition.
Get your popcorn boys and girls...
This is going to be fun to watch.
In fact, I personally know several people served by multiple districts/US courts, taken from venue to venue, lockup to lockup, Judge to Judge, and it stands up provided very minimal standards or/and prerequisites are met.
Will you tell them that it couldn't have been done? - Ask any one of many drug offenders in Federal prison, as well.
let's say the Executive decides that the Conservative members of Congress are too troublesome so he has the FBI pick them up for questioning
The Constitution specifically states:
They [i.e. Congressional representatives -ed. note] shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
So muawiyah's fantasy scenario is already clearly unconstitutional - and it is completely different from the scenario we are discussing.
What we are discussing is the ability of the Justice Department to serve a warrant for files stored in a Congressman's office that isn't even located in the Capitol.
Nice bait-and-switch, muawiyah.
Probably some of the same U.S. Attorneys who DIDN’T yet get booted by WH.
I was about to say. If it’s in Alexandria, he’ll probably be in Congress for many years to come.
The Grand Jury Indictment at http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/060507jefferson.pdf
Haven’t compared it to Cunningham’s.
You guys keep trying to differentiate between the members of Congress as individuals, and the Congress as some sort of metaphysical body ~ maybe a "Great Mother Goddess", as though the individual members are subject to whatever the Executive or the Courts might wish to do.
That is simply not the case. The Congress as an institution is necessarily protected by the Constitution against the other branches, and the constituent parts of Congress, its members, are likewise protected UNLESS the leadership and authorities within Congress decide otherwise.
In the past some Congressmen and Senators have been surrendered to the magistrate, but only with the approval of the House and/or Senate leadership.
I know this is a difficult concept for you rebellious scoundrels to accept, but to have a Congress, even if it means having a Jefferson or two lying about, is vastly superior to having a dictator with a majlis.
Section 5. Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide. Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member. Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the journal. Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
Still not seeing it.
How about that one? Seems to me the Executive and the Judiciary are NOT authorized to punish a Congresscritter for disorderly behavior.
Ordinarily what happens is the Executive and the Judiciary conduct a trial using evidence they acquire by normal means (which would include approval for a search by the Speaker or the Majority Leader) of any Congressional quarters, hold a trial, and then come begging Congress to expel a member.
This happened to a Congresscritter up in Youngstown Ohio's district not too long ago. James Traficant, not nearly as corrupt as this Jefferson guy, was tried and convicted on evidence NOT stolen from a House of Representatives office.
An FBI agent (or his boss) who got too ridden with anxiety to follow the normal course and simply grabbed an available magistrate to sign a warrant, and then undertook an armed raid on a Congressional office probably ought to be put on trial for treason and hanged.
The resolution expelling Traficant (H. Res. 495) read simply, "Resolved, That, pursuant to article I, section 5, clause 2 of the United States Constitution, Representative James A. Traficant, Jr., be, and he hereby is expelled, from the House of Representatives."
Notice the RESOLUTION expelling Traficant cited the exact same thing I referenced for you.
Now how could the entire House of Representatives and the poster known as Muawiyah be right and you be wrong.
Think about that awhile and then get back to me with a lengthy and heart felt apology. You send the picture of you crawling through ground glass via Freepmail if you wish. I may publish it later anyway.
Bwahahahahahahahaha~!!!!
Simply states that the House and Senate may punish their members. Does NOT state that the judiciary cannot.
This clause PREEMPTS the Executive and Judiciary. Now, concerning Commander in Chief, maybe not, particularly if the member is a rebel or something. Presumably even a militia member could shoot one.
Lots and lots of these more obscure Constitutional clauses were exercised (and with that much better understood) as the Confederates left the Congress way back when.
Good to read about what Congress did then.
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.