# Help Me Debunk This E-mail About Congress, Please **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 16, 2010, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-debunk-this-e-mail-about-congress-please/536316 "2010-04-16T06:29:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2010, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-debunk-this-e-mail-about-congress-please/536316/1 "2010-04-16T06:29:22Z")
I got this gem from my sainted mother > [@](#): > > his will take less than thirty seconds to read. If you agree, > please pass it on. > > An idea whose time has come… > > For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of > Congress. Many citizens had no idea that members of Congress could > retire with the same pay after only one term, that they didn’t pay > into Social Security, that they specifically exempted themselves from > many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear > of prosecution for sexual harassment) while ordinary citizens must > live under those laws. The latest is to exempt themselves from the > Healthcare Reform that is being considered…in all of its forms. > Somehow, that doesn’t seem logical. We do not have an elite that is > above the law. I truly don’t care if they are Democrat, Republican, > Independent or whatever. The self-serving must stop. This is a good > way to do that. It is an idea whose time has come. > > Have each person contact a minimum of Twenty people on their Address > list, in turn ask each of those to do likewise. > > In three days, most people in The United States of America will have > the message. This is one proposal that really should be passed > around. > Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution > > “Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the > United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or > Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the > Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the > citizens of the United States .” > > You are one of my 20. > If you don’t have twenty, pass it on to whatever number you can. Since when is a member of Congress exempt from prosecution for sexual harrassment? My gut tells me this e-mail is filled with nonsense. But, I want specific facts and cites to come back to mom with. Thanks for your help. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2010, 6:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-debunk-this-e-mail-about-congress-please/536316/2 "2010-04-16T06:44:25Z")
Fact check is your friend. > **[Lawmaker Loopholes? - FactCheck.org](https://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/lawmaker-loopholes/)** > > Q: Is Congress exempt from “many” laws including one against sexual harassment? A: No. The latest e-mail rant against Congress — proposing a “28th Amendment” to the Constitution — is full of false and outdated claims. FULL QUESTION A chain e-mail... Regarding sexual harassment specifically, Congress for a long time exempted itself from a bunch of laws…the law on sexual harassment, the Americans with Disabilities Act, laws prohibiting age discrimination, the Family and Medical Leave Act, OSHA, and a few other ones. As you can imagine, people were upset about this. In 1994, when the Republicans took Congress, one of the proposals in the Contract with America was that the Republicans would introduce a law getting rid of these exemptions. That they did, passing the Congressional Accountability Act, which got rid of most of those exemptions. ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2010, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-debunk-this-e-mail-about-congress-please/536316/3 "2010-04-16T06:57:08Z")
Thanks for your prompt reply. I also checked Snopes. I would have thought to do that first, but it’s been a long day and I have a head ache. I’m now feeling disappointment in my mother (for believing the e-mail) and respect for Republicans (for passing the act). This makes my head ache much worse. I’m going to bed now. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2010, 9:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-debunk-this-e-mail-about-congress-please/536316/4 "2010-04-16T09:29:09Z")
To help keep this up a bit: How does the whole immunity thing work, then? As in, if they break the law, when can they actually be prosecuted for it? ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2010, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-debunk-this-e-mail-about-congress-please/536316/5 "2010-04-16T15:27:52Z")
There is a “Speech or Debate” clause in the U.S. Constitution. This just says that you can’t arrest or detain a Congressman who is in active attendance or on their way to attend a legislative session. It has exceptions, in the clause itself: treason, felony, breach of peace. Its intent was to preclude the President or some other executive branch authority from being able to send police out to arrest or detain politicians based on minor or trumped up charges (like imagine a situation in which President Obama had all of the legislators who planned to vote against the Health Care reform act detained or arrested for extremely minor traffic violations or something of that nature, in order to prevent them from voting.) Edit to add, the actual text from the constitution: > [@](#): > > 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 from the same, and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place. ---
**Author:** ![whorfin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/6f9a4e/32.png) [@whorfin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whorfin)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2010, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-debunk-this-e-mail-about-congress-please/536316/6 "2010-04-16T15:59:03Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > There is a “Speech or Debate” clause in the U.S. Constitution. This just says that you can’t arrest or detain a Congressman who is in active attendance or on their way to attend a legislative session. It has exceptions, in the clause itself: treason, felony, breach of peace. > > Its intent was to preclude the President or some other executive branch authority from being able to send police out to arrest or detain politicians based on minor or trumped up charges (like imagine a situation in which President Obama had all of the legislators who planned to vote against the Health Care reform act detained or arrested for extremely minor traffic violations or something of that nature, in order to prevent them from voting.) A little OT: but the clause is also important in giving congresscritters absolute immunity for things they say on the house floor. The classic example of this is (IIRC) Mike Gravel reading the pentagon papers into the record in a committee hearing. They were highly classified, but he could not be prosecuted because of the speech & debate clause. ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2010, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-debunk-this-e-mail-about-congress-please/536316/7 "2010-04-16T22:29:28Z")
We had a thread on this very recently. I have to run or I’d search for it. Note however that _no one_ is prosecuted for sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is not a crime. Companies have a responsibility to protect their employees from sexual harassment and, if harassment occurs, they may be required to pay money damages. But the harassers themselves won’t have to pay that (unless they own the company), just the employer. Of course, if through your boorish behavior you cost the company several thousand dollars in damages, they might fire your ass, but that’s the same if you wrap the delivery van around a tree, which isn’t illegal either (if you’re sober). –Cliffy ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2010, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-debunk-this-e-mail-about-congress-please/536316/8 "2010-04-17T01:53:45Z")
[Here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=547287) is the old thread, from January. –Cliffy