Posted on 05/26/2006 4:33:22 AM PDT by AZRepublican
House Speaker Dennis Hastert argued that, "The actions of the Justice Department in seeking and executing this warrant raise important Constitutional issues that go well beyond the specifics of this case. Insofar as I am aware, since the founding of our Republic 219 years ago, the Justice Department has never found it necessary to do what it did Saturday night, crossing this Separation of Powers line, in order to successfully prosecute corruption by Members of Congress. Nothing I have learned in the last 48 hours leads me to believe that there was any necessity to change the precedent established over those 219 years."
The FBI raid did not remotely usurp any powers delegated to the legislative branch under the US Constitution.
If there is ever a separation of power issue, it is between the three branches of government in the exercise of powers delegated under US Constitution. To claim an FBI raid of a congressional office violates a so-called separation of powers principle means Congress can also allege the Supreme Court is violating a separation of powers line every time they review an act of either the legislative or executive branch.
When the three branches of the national government was devised, it was done so for the purpose of making each independent of the other in the course of exercising their power. This did not make them immune from the lawful reach of either the people, judiciary or law enforcement. If this FBI raid on Jefferson's office is unjust, then call it unjust, but do not insist it is a constitutional violation because no such violation can be found or supported.
Hastert would stand on firmer ground if he would instead argue a separation of powers violation over Congress' total disregard for the sovereignty of the people and the States. The founders must be frowning down on this comical Congress over their recent efforts to decide upon themselves to who may or, may not, enter and reside within the many States of the union who are not citizens of the United States. This is clearly a separation of powers violation and total trashing of the great compact entered between the States in forming their union called the United States of America.
We can expect Hastert and Co. to continue remaining silent on this constitutional violation.
Dennis A*sHastert must have been smoking crack when he made the statement.
They are all smoking some powerful s**t up on the Hill
The Constitution specifically authorizes the executive branch to arrest Congressmen in the event of a felony. Article I, Section 6, IIRC.
As I understand it, the Constitution specifically authorizes Congress to establish rules governing immigration, naturalization, etc.
They're doing an atrocious job of it, but it certainly isn't unconstitutional for them to pass such laws.
Wha? Where's the editor?
The relevant provision of the Constitution states: "[F]or any Speech or Debate in either House, [Senators and Representatives] shall not be questioned in any other Place." (Article I, Section 6). I do not see how this creates an exemption from an otherwise lawful search.
The majority of them anyhow...
Bingo
The Speech and Debate ClauseThe Federal offenses of bribery and gratuities apply to payments made in consideration for, or to thank or curry favor with, Members of Congress and their legislative staffs. However, where an official of the Legislative Branch is the intended recipient, the task of proving the "official act" element can present prosecutors with unique challenges rooted in the Speech and Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitution. U.S. Constit. Art I, sec 6, cl 1.
The Speech and Debate Clause provides the "legislative acts" of a Senator or a Representative "shall not be questioned in any place." It applies in criminal as well as civil litigation involving the Senator or Representative, and provides absolute immunity to United States Senators and Representatives while they are engaged in legislative acts. United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501 (1972); United States v. Helstoski, 442 U.S. 477 (1976). Its purpose is to assure the Congress a wide and unfettered latitude of freedom of speech in the deliberative process surrounding enacting legislation, and to shield that process from potential intimidation from the Executive and Judicial Branches. Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606 (1972); Powell v. McCormick, 395 U.S. 486 (1969).
While the Speech and Debate Clause has been expressly held not to shield Senators or Representatives against bribery charges, United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S. 169 (1966), it does impose significant limits on the type of evidence that can be used to prove such an offense. The Clause broadly protects members of Congress "against inquiry into acts that occur in the regular course of the legislative process and into the motivation for those acts," United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501, 525 (1972), and "precludes any showing of how [a member of Congress], acted, voted, or decided." Id. at 527. The Supreme Court has declared that "past legislative acts of a Member cannot be admitted without undermining the values protected by the Clause," including speeches in committee as well as those on the Floor of the Chamber, the Senator or Representative's votes, and his or her explanations for them. A somewhat wider latitude has been allowed insofar as the admissibility of activities that occurred prior to a legislative act. United States v. Helstoski, 442 U.S. 477, 489 (1979). However, the parameters of what constitutes a "legislative act" are quite broad, and can severely impair the ability of prosecutors to prove bribery and gratuity cases where the recipient is an elected Member of the Legislative Branch.
When evidence embraced by this privilege is introduced--either in trial or in grand jury proceedings--the effect can be as troubling to the prosecution as introducing the fruits of an illegal search. See United States v. Durenburger, 1993 WL 738477 (D.Minn 1993); Helstoski, supra; compare Johnson.
In addition, both the House and the Senate consider that the Speech and Debate Clause gives them an institutional right to refuse requests for information that originate in the Executive or the Judicial Branches that concern the legislative process. Thus, most requests for information and testimony dealing with the legislative process must be presented to the Chamber affected, and that Chamber permitted to vote on whether or not to produce the information sought. This applies to grand jury subpoenas, and to requests that seek testimony as well as documents. The customary practice when seeking information from the Legislative Branch which is not voluntarily forthcoming from a Senator or Member is to route the request through the Clerk of the House or the Secretary of the Senate. This process can be time-consuming. However, bona fide requests for information bearing on ongoing criminal inquiries have been rarely refused.
The Public Integrity Section of Criminal Division has significant expertise in addressing and overcoming Speech and Debate issues. Prosecutors are encouraged to contact Public Integrity when the official acts of an elected Member of the Legislative Branch become the focus of a criminal inquiry.
Harry Truman once made a speech wherein he called a Congress at his time the worst in history. Harry was right then, but he hadnt experienced anything like this pack of clowns.
Pretty potent stuff I'd say. Or is he protecting his buddies.
Yes! I demand hat we be able to be free enough to use bathroom showerheads that produce more than 2.5 gallons per minute!
It is my sovereign right -- keep Congress out of my shower!
So what? They weren't arresting the Congressman. They were searching and seizing stuff from his office.
Making rules for naturalization is an act of becoming a citizen *after* immigration. The constitution does not empower congress any authority over the migration of people, only the states can control immigration within their borders.
Also the constitution only gives congress the power to make rules, not carry them out. Acts of naturalzation was always carried out by the states who often applied their own rules above what congress enacted.
I absolutely agree that Hastert is dead wrong {not to mention arrogant and stupid} on this issue. I think if the President hadn't sealed the papers, and if Hastert wouldn't have backed off, the firestorm that developed would have blown himout of the Speakers chair before the July 4th recess.
The 45 days, will be a cooling off period.
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.