Eutrusca
13-07-2006, 07:45
COMMENTARY: No matter how much the members of Congress protest, the courts continue to remind them that no one is above the law. As the article indicates, the "balance of power works just fine." Your thoughts?
The Rule of Law: Limits of Congressional Rights (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/12/opinion/12weds2.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin)
Published: July 12, 2006
When the F.B.I. searched the offices of William Jefferson, the scandal-plagued Democratic congressman from Louisiana, it produced a rare moment of bipartisanship. Leaders of both parties insisted that the search infringed on the rights of Congress. This week, Thomas Hogan, a federal district court judge in Washington, gave Congress a much-needed reminder that no one is above the law.
The search arose from an investigation of charges that Representative Jefferson helped a private company and thereby enriched himself. The agents had a valid warrant, and used procedures that minimized the chance of taking unrelated legislative materials. Mr. Jefferson objected and demanded that the seized material be returned. House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi issued a rare joint statement supporting him.
Mr. Jefferson maintained that members of Congress should be told in advance about searches and allowed to remove material they considered privileged. A search is, of course, considerably less effective if the target is allowed to remove what he likes before the police arrive.
Judge Hogan rightly ruled that the search did not violate the “speech or debate” clause of the Constitution, which protects members of Congress when they are engaged in core legislative functions, like speaking on the floor or traveling to a Congressional session. That provision does not provide immunity for the sort of activities at issue in this investigation.
The court also rebuffed Mr. Jefferson’s claim that the search violated separation of powers principles. The founders wanted the three co-equal branches to have a sphere of autonomy, but they also wanted each to serve as a check on the other two. When executive branch investigators carried out a search with a judicially approved warrant, checks and balances were working just right.
The power to investigate Congress could be abused. In that case, Congress would have stronger legal claims, and it could use its own authority, including the power of impeachment, to protect itself. But the investigation of Representative Jefferson is not a power grab. It is a run-of-the-mill criminal case, and as the Supreme Court has said, members of Congress are not “super-citizens, immune from criminal responsibility.”
The Rule of Law: Limits of Congressional Rights (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/12/opinion/12weds2.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin)
Published: July 12, 2006
When the F.B.I. searched the offices of William Jefferson, the scandal-plagued Democratic congressman from Louisiana, it produced a rare moment of bipartisanship. Leaders of both parties insisted that the search infringed on the rights of Congress. This week, Thomas Hogan, a federal district court judge in Washington, gave Congress a much-needed reminder that no one is above the law.
The search arose from an investigation of charges that Representative Jefferson helped a private company and thereby enriched himself. The agents had a valid warrant, and used procedures that minimized the chance of taking unrelated legislative materials. Mr. Jefferson objected and demanded that the seized material be returned. House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi issued a rare joint statement supporting him.
Mr. Jefferson maintained that members of Congress should be told in advance about searches and allowed to remove material they considered privileged. A search is, of course, considerably less effective if the target is allowed to remove what he likes before the police arrive.
Judge Hogan rightly ruled that the search did not violate the “speech or debate” clause of the Constitution, which protects members of Congress when they are engaged in core legislative functions, like speaking on the floor or traveling to a Congressional session. That provision does not provide immunity for the sort of activities at issue in this investigation.
The court also rebuffed Mr. Jefferson’s claim that the search violated separation of powers principles. The founders wanted the three co-equal branches to have a sphere of autonomy, but they also wanted each to serve as a check on the other two. When executive branch investigators carried out a search with a judicially approved warrant, checks and balances were working just right.
The power to investigate Congress could be abused. In that case, Congress would have stronger legal claims, and it could use its own authority, including the power of impeachment, to protect itself. But the investigation of Representative Jefferson is not a power grab. It is a run-of-the-mill criminal case, and as the Supreme Court has said, members of Congress are not “super-citizens, immune from criminal responsibility.”