Post #256,818
5/25/06 9:57:58 AM
|
Now I agree with BP....
there truly isn't any difference between them. \ufffdThe Justice Department must immediately return the papers it unconstitutionally seized,\ufffd House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., and Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a statement.
After that, they said, Democratic Rep. William Jefferson of Louisiana must cooperate with the Justice Department\ufffds bribery investigation against him. [link|http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12954716/| Source ] I still don't see anywhere in the Constitution that places the Legislature above the law. (But then again, I never agreed with Executive Priviledge) The only way to possibly argue their point is to claim that the FBI is deliberately attempting to interfere with the legislative process -- and they aren't. And I'm not the only one pissed about it. (DailyKos and others)
|
Post #256,821
5/25/06 10:02:46 AM
|
I see both sides
On the one hand, if you were the chief executive and wanted to intimidate lawmakers, this would be a really good way.
On the other hand, the question I'd like to ask Hastert and Pelosi is, "If the FBI isn't allowed to enter your offices to investigate possible illegal acts, who is?"
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #256,835
5/25/06 11:06:38 AM
|
They're not above the law, but the Constitution says...
that the House shall make its own rules governing its members. [link|http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section5|Article 1, Sections 5 and 6]: 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.
Section 6. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They 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.
No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time: and no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office. Emphasis added. The Executive Branch is treading on shaky ground by searching a Member's office, IMO. Yes, it's not cut-and-dried, but I think there's a couple of good reasons why it's never been done before - 1) Separation of Powers, 2) The Rules of the House govern a Member's behavior. [link|http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/59024.pdf|This] 14 page .pdf (from the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress) has more details on the law and the Rules. As for Hastert and Pelosi being on the same side, I think they both see this as a dangerous precedent - an issue much bigger than what happens to Jefferson. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #256,841
5/25/06 11:34:58 AM
|
couple problems with that
They 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. 1. It wasn't an arrest, it was a search pursuant to a judges (judicial branch, not executive) issued warrant in a (2) felony investigation. Those pesky checks and balances. And if they want to get in a snit over breaches of the constitution, they have had plenty of opportunity before now to howl about abuses. Screw 'em. -----------------------------------------
Impeach Bush. Impeach Cheney. Do it now.
|
Post #256,849
5/25/06 12:46:28 PM
|
I note it....
and there's valid arguments there, imo.
I think that's why I'm annoyed with Nancy. She could've made her argument on a lot of grounds - and I specificially disagree with the grounds that she's chosen.
|
Post #256,858
5/25/06 2:06:09 PM
|
I feel the earth...move...under my feet ;-)
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #256,863
5/25/06 2:31:51 PM
|
OY! no singing!!
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
|
