Posted on 08/03/2007 3:34:45 PM PDT by Revel
WASHINGTON — The FBI violated the Constitution when agents raided U.S. Rep. William Jefferson's office last year and viewed legislative documents in a corruption investigation, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.
The court ordered the Justice Department to return any legislative documents it seized from the Louisiana Democrat's office on Capitol Hill. The court did not order the return of all the documents seized in the raid and did not say whether prosecutors could use any of the records against Jefferson in their bribery case.
Jefferson argued that the first-of-its-kind raid trampled congressional independence. The Constitution prohibits the executive branch from using its law enforcement powers to interfere with the lawmaking process. The Justice Department said that declaring the search unconstitutional would essentially prohibit the FBI from ever looking at a lawmaker's documents.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
From THEIR story:
"The court held that, while the search itself was constitutional, FBI agents crossed the line when they viewed every record in the office without giving Jefferson the chance to argue that some documents involved legislative business."
‘but a Black Democrat? ‘
Kennedy Jr. is still walking around free. Feinstein and Reid are still in the senate.
Please place the race card back into the deck.
You’ve got that right. America! Truth! “Justice!” and ‘RATS all the way! It’s absolutely amazing how the DNC’s toadies in the so-called “media” have been able to convince the boneheads living in this country that it is the Republicans who are the bad guys. America is definitely experiencing a “blonde moment.” It will probably be our last one.
Why in the world would such an “astute” politician keep $90,000 in cash in a non-interest bearing account, like in his freezer?
And why do these congressional office types need to have a freezer in their office? Are we supposed to believe they — and their staff — are brownbagging it?
I don’t think so.
Read the Constitution. BTW, some Congresscritters like Senator Rockefeller draw no compensation from the Treasury. So whose employee is he?
Since congressmen are elected by a citizenry of a state and are expected to represent the state, I would hope to GOD they are on the state’s payroll, not uncle sam’s. Any compensation from the federal boys would, in my mind, create questions as to their loyalty and ambitions. If the standard practice is for congressmen to receive payment from the federal-I-don’t-give-a-dam-what-branch, then I would hope that someone is working hard to change this.
They pay themselves.
Just like any other board of directors of any corporation.
'taint nothin' new.
I think a careful reading of the Constitution will reveal they are not allowed to draw additional compensation from a state.
A representative oughtta receive payment based on the taxable income of his constituency. Nothing more. Leave the federal scum out of it entirely. Let the state citizenry decide what the commensurate amount shall be. I want my representatives going into DC as if he were going into war and I want all the other reps doing the same. Every state for itself.
“I know it’s hard for the royalists and fascists in FR to get it through their heads on this one but the President does not own Congress!”
That is a bit of reaching to post. Please specifically post the line in post #3 that even alludes to the President owning congress.
Please point out the section that indicates the poster considers the President Royalty.
Help us read #3 better.
It's way past time for another revolution in this country.
It was unprecedented ~ never done before ~ the Founders knew that such raids were impermissible ~ no one even tried it except the Brits who burned the White House and the Capitol building.
Some Freepers are royalists ~ they believe in the inerrant suppremacy of the Executive Branch. They cannot understand the word "unprecedented".
At the end of their terms they are taken out and executed.
It is my contention we would not lack for candidates for these offices, and the members would probably do as good a job as those we usually elect under far more liberal conditions.
Only people with terminal disease would serve a full term.
If I’m understanding you, everyone will be executed that serves a complete term. Is that correct? So all elected officials will step down before finishing a full term?
That way short timers would not be able to steal and get away with it ~ something far different than with modern Congresses.
Note, the term(inal) limitation proposal was soley for members of Congress, not other elected officials.
This ruling is a Congressional license to steal!
Nor from bribes, kickbacks, extortion, shake downs, influence pedaling, etc. That is why the FBI was sent to congress-person Jefferson's offices.
Do you see no link? Do you believe congress has a right to operate a criminal enterprise from their office? Do you think those criminal enterprises were intended by the founders to be exempt from laws that apply to the citizenry?
Do you also assert that the founders wished the congress to have ROYAL protections and exclusion not available to the citizenry?
In all forms.
The individual, the individual as a member of the congress, and the congress as a whole or in part.
The founders never intended, in personal correspondence or in deliberations for the government members to ever have any special treatment or standing.
The intended them to be just citizens in the service of their states, country, and fellow citizens.
I was hoping someone noticed that.
I’m relieved some are paying attention. Thank you.
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.