Interesting Civics stuff #2...

[Larry Gude]

We'll see...

...what we'll see I suppose. I can't provide an interpretation of what the seperation of powers mean to the court in this matter but the reasons pointed out, especially that this is the first time, ever, well, Jefferson sure as all hell ain't the first person deserving of having his office searched.

Agree?

 

[willie]

...what we'll see I suppose. I can't provide an interpretation of what the seperation of powers mean to the court in this matter but the reasons pointed out, especially that this is the first time, ever, well, Jefferson sure as all hell ain't the first person deserving of having his office searched.

Agree?

After 8-9 months of stonewalling, he begged for them to take action. Everything was well within the law. I would expect that the Dems would cry foul but Hastert? Maybe his office should be next.

 

[Larry Gude]

That's not true...

After 8-9 months of stonewalling, he begged for them to take action. Everything was well within the law. I would expect that the Dems would cry foul but Hastert? Maybe his office should be next.

...the executive can NOT go through a members office like this. Had they gotten Hastert and Pelosi's permission, maybe. Not tell them, but ask.

The fact that this has NEVER happened before should tell you people at least something, unless you believe Rep. Cold Cash is the first one, in over 200 years, to draw suspicion.

The fact that the President is now backpedaling as fast as he can and has sealed the documents taken should tell you more.

This could not be simpler. The separation of powers is real, proper and a damn good idea to insure a free society and should be understood without much effort.

What you people should be jumping up and down for is the Congress to be policing it's own, vigorously. They are above the law but they are not above the voters.

 

[Ken King]

...the executive can NOT go through a members office like this. Had they gotten Hastert and Pelosi's permission, maybe. Not tell them, but ask.

The fact that this has NEVER happened before should tell you people at least something, unless you believe Rep. Cold Cash is the first one, in over 200 years, to draw suspicion.

The fact that the President is now backpedaling as fast as he can and has sealed the documents taken should tell you more.

This could not be simpler. The separation of powers is real, proper and a damn good idea to insure a free society and should be understood without much effort.

What you people should be jumping up and down for is the Congress to be policing it's own, vigorously. They are above the law but they are not above the voters.

Larry,

Show me in our laws or in the Constitution where the members of the legislature are exempt from and above the laws that they craft or where they are shielded from criminal prosecution (other then as outlined in Article 1, section 5 as it relates to arrests and their attendance at Congress)?

Is not the Executive bound to insure that the laws crafted by the Legislative are enforced? Doesn't the self-policing of Congress, that you indicate exists, in itself create a violation of the separation of powers amongst the bodies of the government?

Your contention that Congress is above the law is ludicrous, they might hold special privilege due to their station but they are equally bound and controlled by the laws of the nation just as every citizen is.

 

[Larry Gude]

They are not exempt...

...by any stretch. Cold Cash IS under investigation and has been and still is under investigation.

You can call them being above the law rediculous all you want and it won't change that they are above the law as it applies to you and I. They are not all the way above it, just some. So is the President and so is the Supreme Court as regards to limits on what the other two branches can do to a third or to each other.

A President is immune to prosecution while in office for far more things than you or I as is the Supremes as is Congress. We can amend the Constitution though and change it. You lead the way.

Larry,

Show me in our laws or in the Constitution where the members of the legislature are exempt from and above the laws that they craft or where they are shielded from criminal prosecution (other then as outlined in Article 1, section 5 as it relates to arrests and their attendance at Congress)?

Is not the Executive bound to insure that the laws crafted by the Legislative are enforced? Doesn't the self-policing of Congress, that you indicate exists, in itself create a violation of the separation of powers amongst the bodies of the government?

Your contention that Congress is above the law is ludicrous, they might hold special privilege due to their station but they are equally bound and controlled by the laws of the nation just as every citizen is.

 

[Ken King]

...by any stretch. Cold Cash IS under investigation and has been and still is under investigation.

You can call them being above the law rediculous all you want and it won't change that they are above the law as it applies to you and I. They are not all the way above it, just some. So is the President and so is the Supreme Court as regards to limits on what the other two branches can do to a third or to each other.

A President is immune to prosecution while in office for far more things than you or I as is the Supremes as is Congress. We can amend the Constitution though and change it. You lead the way.

Larry,

There will always be some that fall into a "privileged" class. We see it not only with the pols but with the rich and famous as well. There is nothing new here and most of it is directly related to the ability to procure top-notch legal representation. But, and this is a big but, none of us are beyond the bounds of the law of the nation. The appearance of disparity does exist but I think it is a case of notoriety and clout (meaning wealth) that leads to that perception and not a matter of garnered immunity.

I am also of the opinion that a sitting President is not immune from prosecution of criminal offenses, civil maybe, but for high crimes (felonies) and misdemeanors the impeachment provision is the defined means of dealing with a President’s nefarious acts. Thusly, there is no need to amend the Constitution as it works fairly well, what is needed, in my opinion, is the vigilance to not fall victim to the assumption that other elected officials (namely the Congress) are immune except at times and places as enumerated. And if you note there is no provision of equal structure in the Constitution to protect the members of Congress from prosecution. Therefore in my mind they are not immune and not above the law.

As to “Cold Cash” I ask, should the Executive be limited on its ability to investigate, gather evidence and prosecute reported/discovered wrong-doing? I think not, and while I might agree that for the most part the halls of Congress should be a sanctuary from investigation and arrest, the office space provided beyond that structure should be open to search given that a warrant has been duly obtained and served in accordance with our legal procedure.

 

[Larry Gude]

That's not the point...

Larry, There will always be some that fall into a "privileged" class.

The rich and famous get it by choice; people defer to them and also, as you say, by better representation. Members of government get it, privilege, by law.

You point out that the President is in fact subordinate to a 'high crimes and misdemeanor' standard. That is the point; he is above the law up to THAT extent. Same with judges. Congress is above the law to the extent of felonies, treason and disturbing the peace OUTSIDE of their official realm.

As I read it, if Jefferson walked out to the Mall and shot someone dead and went back into his office, no one can touch him; except Congress. So, had the FBI simply gone to see Pelosi and Hastert and ASKED, they would be stuck with a small dilemma; give up some turf, at least in perception or face the voters having denied the FBI access. Like it or not, they are tasked with their responsibilities and one them is defending the separation of powers.

 

[Larry Gude]

Furthermore...

Larry, As to “Cold Cash” I ask, should the Executive be limited on its ability to investigate, gather evidence and prosecute reported/discovered wrong-doing? I think not, and while I might agree that for the most part the halls of Congress should be a sanctuary from investigation and arrest, the office space provided beyond that structure should be open to search given that a warrant has been duly obtained and served in accordance with our legal procedure.

Yes, he should be limited and is limited. The FBI can set the guy up...outside of his official realm. They can't bug his office. They can't set up a sting in his office or the Capital.

You say;

while I might agree that for the most part the halls of Congress should be a sanctuary from investigation and arrest, the office space provided beyond that structure should be open to search given that a warrant has been duly obtained and served in accordance with our legal procedu

You might agree, so you recognize SOME limit yourself and therein lies the debate; what are the limits? As for his office, that is within his realm as an elected member of congress. A judge can no more change the Constitution (or at least not supposed to be able to) with a warrant that Congress can order the Supreme Court to televise their business.

Separation of powers. Limits. Protections.

Again, the REAL debate to me is, what is the House gonna do with this turd and when? The issue is not in that they stood up for their right to handle this, it is that they aren't doing anything about it. Pelosi wants it to go away so she can go back to calling Republicans corrupt. Hastert wants it to go away so he is not viewed as attacking the other party for political gain. Everyone wants this guy to fall on his sword.

I think the founders wanted it this way.

 

[Ken King]

The rich and famous get it by choice; people defer to them and also, as you say, by better representation. Members of government get it, privilege, by law.

You point out that the President is in fact subordinate to a 'high crimes and misdemeanor' standard. That is the point; he is above the law up to THAT extent. Same with judges. Congress is above the law to the extent of felonies, treason and disturbing the peace OUTSIDE of their official realm.

As I read it, if Jefferson walked out to the Mall and shot someone dead and went back into his office, no one can touch him; except Congress. So, had the FBI simply gone to see Pelosi and Hastert and ASKED, they would be stuck with a small dilemma; give up some turf, at least in perception or face the voters having denied the FBI access. Like it or not, they are tasked with their responsibilities and one them is defending the separation of powers.

Larry,

The relevent section of the Constitution says, "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;"

How in the hell do you get that if any of them shot someone they would be exempt from prosecution?

As to asking Hasart or Pelosi for permission to conduct the search is BS. The warrant was duly granted to cover the place and scope of the search. Congresspersons are not protected when they break a law classed as a felony.

Have you read 18USC203? You know, it's kind of like the IWR.

 

[Larry Gude]

Dear Annonymous...

...Bonzai, in my world is a PGR, chemical plant growth regulator, as well as a specialized shrub. So, no, my Bonzai does not need 'training' and I don't carry the other kind.

Never rub another mans rhubarb. Or Bonzai.

The Joker.

 

[Bruzilla]

Thing is, you can set the recod straight in the *press*. Or you can claim slander or libel or defamation as the case may be. But if you claim sexual harassment, it has to be connected to the workplace, and some of the rules are kinda dopey if you ask me.

So... she's a state employee, working at an official state event, and is told by a state trooper that her boss, the governor of the state, wants to see her. Yeah, maybe the event happened at a hotel and not the governor's mansion but she's still on the state's clock doing the state's work when the incident happened. So it did occur in the workplace and she was 100% entitled to take legal action.

 

[Larry Gude]

How to say this?

Larry,

The relevent section of the Constitution says, "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;"

How in the hell do you get that if any of them shot someone they would be exempt from prosecution?

As to asking Hasart or Pelosi for permission to conduct the search is BS. The warrant was duly granted to cover the place and scope of the search. Congresspersons are not protected when they break a law classed as a felony.

Have you read 18USC203? You know, it's kind of like the IWR.

...HE WAS NOT ARRESTED. HE IS NOT EVEN CHARGED. As I read it, they may NOT conduct investigations on legislature turf. I may be wrong about this but 200 years and this is the first time? What does that tell you?????????

As far as a murder, Preston Brooks nearly beat Charles Sumner to death, at his desk, in the Senate. And was re-elected. He didn't even get a ticket.

You do NOT have to like it. They are ABOVE the law in this regard. I would expect that if, let's just say, William Jefferson killed a homeless person on the mall, and ran into the Captial, the cops would NOT enter until they had been given permission.

 

[Bruzilla]

How about a good hypothetical? I'd think suspicion of murder would, at least, fall under breaching the peace. Now, in that vein, how about our boy Gary Condit? Wanna bet that someone asked to search his office looking for Chondra Leavy clues? Wanna bet they were told to forget it.

Bad example. There wasn't sufficient evidence for the police to get a warrant to search Condit's apartment. He allowed a voluntary search that lasted for over three hours and yielded nada, so there's no way that any judge would even consider a search warrant for his office. Now Jefferson on the other hand was caught red handed with the cold cash, and was also caught on tape committing a crime... that's a different story.

 

[Ken King]

Yes, he should be limited and is limited. The FBI can set the guy up...outside of his official realm. They can't bug his office. They can't set up a sting in his office or the Capital.

You say;



You might agree, so you recognize SOME limit yourself and therein lies the debate; what are the limits? As for his office, that is within his realm as an elected member of congress. A judge can no more change the Constitution (or at least not supposed to be able to) with a warrant that Congress can order the Supreme Court to televise their business.

Separation of powers. Limits. Protections.

Again, the REAL debate to me is, what is the House gonna do with this turd and when? The issue is not in that they stood up for their right to handle this, it is that they aren't doing anything about it. Pelosi wants it to go away so she can go back to calling Republicans corrupt. Hastert wants it to go away so he is not viewed as attacking the other party for political gain. Everyone wants this guy to fall on his sword.

I think the founders wanted it this way.

Of course the FBI can set them up, wasn't that what ABSCAM was all about. Still one Senator and five Representatives were convicted. Most of them resigned but one waited until the proceedings to expel them before giving up the seat.

My "might agree" is within the context of the exception given in the Constitution for their protection of arrest during the attendance at sessions, but it is only a "might" and would have to be weighed with regard to the incident.

As to what the House does with the turd is up to them, but it has no bearing on the investigation and/or prosecution should there be any. These are distinct and separate matters.

 

[Ken King]

Larry,

Just for you.

18USC203

(a) Whoever, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duties, directly or indirectly—
(1) demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept any compensation for any representational services, as agent or attorney or otherwise, rendered or to be rendered either personally or by another—
(A) at a time when such person is a Member of Congress, Member of Congress Elect, Delegate, Delegate Elect, Resident Commissioner, or Resident Commissioner Elect; or
(B) at a time when such person is an officer or employee or Federal judge of the United States in the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government, or in any agency of the United States,
in relation to any proceeding, application, request for a ruling or other determination, contract, claim, controversy, charge, accusation, arrest, or other particular matter in which the United States is a party or has a direct and substantial interest, before any department, agency, court, court-martial, officer, or any civil, military, or naval commission; or
(2) knowingly gives, promises, or offers any compensation for any such representational services rendered or to be rendered at a time when the person to whom the compensation is given, promised, or offered, is or was such a Member, Member Elect, Delegate, Delegate Elect, Commissioner, Commissioner Elect, Federal judge, officer, or employee;

shall be subject to the penalties set forth in section 216 of this title.

(b) Whoever, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duties, directly or indirectly—
(1) demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept any compensation for any representational services, as agent or attorney or otherwise, rendered or to be rendered either personally or by another, at a time when such person is an officer or employee of the District of Columbia, in relation to any proceeding, application, request for a ruling or other determination, contract, claim, controversy, charge, accusation, arrest, or other particular matter in which the District of Columbia is a party or has a direct and substantial interest, before any department, agency, court, officer, or commission; or
(2) knowingly gives, promises, or offers any compensation for any such representational services rendered or to be rendered at a time when the person to whom the compensation is given, promised, or offered, is or was an officer or employee of the District of Columbia;

shall be subject to the penalties set forth in section 216 of this title.

Why have this law if it means nothing? And if it is a willful act it is a felony.

 

[Ken King]

...HE WAS NOT ARRESTED. HE IS NOT EVEN CHARGED. As I read it, they may NOT conduct investigations on legislature turf. I may be wrong about this but 200 years and this is the first time? What does that tell you?????????

Where are you reading this? Or is it more likely that you are reading in to it? Show me anything that says investigations cannot be conducted on a person holding office in the Congress of the USA.

 

[Larry Gude]

Good point...

Of course the FBI can set them up, wasn't that what ABSCAM was all about. Still one Senator and five Representatives were convicted. Most of them resigned but one waited until the proceedings to expel them before giving up the seat.

My "might agree" is within the context of the exception given in the Constitution for their protection of arrest during the attendance at sessions, but it is only a "might" and would have to be weighed with regard to the incident.

As to what the House does with the turd is up to them, but it has no bearing on the investigation and/or prosecution should there be any. These are distinct and separate matters.

...but was ABSCAM connected with their offices, their sanctuary? Or did the crimes occur, as in Jefferson's case, outside of the halls of congress? One of the convictions was overturned and there were plenty of allegations of political motivation which is the VERY reason for the separation.

You claim these are separate matters. Do you have an opinion on why this is the first time, ever, that this has been done, searching a members congressional office without permission?

 

[Larry Gude]

Let's make this simple...

Where are you reading this? Or is it more likely that you are reading in to it? Show me anything that says investigations cannot be conducted on a person holding office in the Congress of the USA.

...show me why it hasn't happened in the past, ever?

 

[Larry Gude]

You are pounding the table Ken...

Larry,

Just for you.

18USC203

(a) Whoever, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duties, directly or indirectly—
(1) demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept any compensation for any representational services, as agent or attorney or otherwise, rendered or to be rendered either personally or by another—
(A) at a time when such person is a Member of Congress, Member of Congress Elect, Delegate, Delegate Elect, Resident Commissioner, or Resident Commissioner Elect; or
(B) at a time when such person is an officer or employee or Federal judge of the United States in the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government, or in any agency of the United States,
in relation to any proceeding, application, request for a ruling or other determination, contract, claim, controversy, charge, accusation, arrest, or other particular matter in which the United States is a party or has a direct and substantial interest, before any department, agency, court, court-martial, officer, or any civil, military, or naval commission; or
(2) knowingly gives, promises, or offers any compensation for any such representational services rendered or to be rendered at a time when the person to whom the compensation is given, promised, or offered, is or was such a Member, Member Elect, Delegate, Delegate Elect, Commissioner, Commissioner Elect, Federal judge, officer, or employee;

shall be subject to the penalties set forth in section 216 of this title.

(b) Whoever, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duties, directly or indirectly—
(1) demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept any compensation for any representational services, as agent or attorney or otherwise, rendered or to be rendered either personally or by another, at a time when such person is an officer or employee of the District of Columbia, in relation to any proceeding, application, request for a ruling or other determination, contract, claim, controversy, charge, accusation, arrest, or other particular matter in which the District of Columbia is a party or has a direct and substantial interest, before any department, agency, court, officer, or commission; or
(2) knowingly gives, promises, or offers any compensation for any such representational services rendered or to be rendered at a time when the person to whom the compensation is given, promised, or offered, is or was an officer or employee of the District of Columbia;

shall be subject to the penalties set forth in section 216 of this title.

Why have this law if it means nothing? And if it is a willful act it is a felony.

...I've already acknolwedged they are not totally above the law. I acknowledge they are subject to 18USC203. It says so.

It does not, however, address, that I see, whether the halls of Congress are fair game.

 

[Larry Gude]

I'm trudging through this...

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/011.pdf


...in an attempt to see how a situation like this has been dealt with in the past. So far all I read are reasons why congress has rights in this matter and that the executive overstepped.

Have you found anything applicable?