Dennis A*sHastert must have been smoking crack when he made the statement.
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.
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.
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!
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.
I sent the following email to my Congresscritter (a solid Conservative Republican):
"Congressman Hastert, and those supporting him on the William Jefferson situation are WRONG! The U. S. Constitution does NOT prohibit exercizing a warrant in a Congressional office. Hastert, Pelosi, and others are obfuscating the situation and making fools of themselves.
Congressmen are no more above the law than I am. Should I have committed the same crimes that Congresscritter Jefferson is accused of, the FBI, or any other law enforcement organization with jurisdiction, would be over and through my house in a nano-second, and I'd have no control (or say so) over what they confiscate. You people want to retain privacy; don't break the law!
With Congressional opinion polls showing public support being even less than for the President, this is the WRONG message to send. It smacks of petulance, ignorance and pomposity. Suggestion: Next time you're with Hastert, finger-flick him upside the ear and tell him to get real, and concentrate on the Nations business instead of his own ego. Oh, and tell him, in turn, to stay away from Pelosi; she's a bad influence on anyone within 500 yards.
I've always had respect for Hastert. That's gone. He's become just another office seeker to me. Oh, and be sure to tell him that he needs to get 100% behind the House Immigration Bill, HR 4437. This garbage the Senate passed yesterday MUST NOT STAND!
If this reads as though I'm fed up and mad, well, I am. The Republicans are supposed to lead, not act like Prima donnas."
Every time a dumbocrat gets caught with hands in the cookie jar, some other issue is promoted over it.
A $100,000.00 bribe caught on tape - separation of powers.
Bad news for dumbos - timing of the release.
Dumbos dirty tricks memo - how did the pubbies get the memo.
Etc, etc...
It is the responsibility of each branch of government to "check and balance" the other two. If the Executive branch has reason to believe the Legislative branch is violating the law, then it has the responsibility to do whatever is necessary to legally check it.
It is the responsibility of each branch of government to "check and balance" the other two. If the Executive branch has reason to believe the Legislative branch is violating the law, then it has the responsibility to do whatever is necessary to legally check it.
What disdain for our Founders' intelligence there is on these threads.
Dennis H. is claiming that it was his "evil twin" that spoke out of turn. HE was inside the hallowed walls of Congress, doing "the people's work" the whole time. (/sarcasm)
It was an absurd argument to begin with. If Hastert, Pelosi, et. al, were correct, the a corrupt member of Congress could use the Constitution as a shield to hide evidence any illegal activity; bribery, murder, rape, etc. Just keep all the evidence in your Congressional office and no one could find it. Makes no sense.