Damned if I know.
Pretty much. Worse, Dems and Pubs alike must appear to defend Jefferson, however obliquely, in objection to the raid. An unnuanced interpretation of the message is “what goes on here stays here”.
I can only guess the bipartisan objection reflects nervousness on the part of all Congressional members that their cherished precedent somehow remain inviolate, esp. in a political climate where public esteem of Congressional ethics is about as low as its ever been. If that gate is crashed, there’s likely to be little voter objection to this sort of thing happening again and agian, if deemed necessary by Justice. Perceptions or accusations of partisan slant would likely follow this rare instance of bipartisan solidarity, in that event.
I think you’re all missing the reason for the concern (and the Times article I read had the Republicans out in front on this - this is bipartisan.) They see this as a continuation of the Executive Branch running roughshod over the Legislative branch. We have them ignoring laws they don’t like for reasons of national security, we have them expanding the notion of executive privilege. They’re not very good on consulting with Congress on many things. Now they invade an office. Yeah, this one was justified, but what about the next time? Congressmen have confidential documents also - I’m not sure they trust the FBI to preserve them. I think the leaders of Congress wanted to be informed before this happened.
Say the police had a search warrant for the content of someone’s desk on a matter that did not directly involve the company. Sure they could barge in, but wouldn’t it often be better to inform the management of a company important in the town, and get cooperation?
Add to this that Bush’s poll numbers means Republicans want to distance themselves from him, and this is a great opportunity.
It’s a horrible opportunity, because Congress is pretty clearly in the wrong on this one. There are any number of issues on which the administration has wrongly treated Congress like a red-headed stepchild. If the legislature had stood up during any one of them, they might have garnered public support from it and forced Bush to pay more attention to Congress.
By choosing this issue, they’re making it seem like they’re only going to stand up to the administration when it’s their own priveleges at risk. They look like the corrupt ones on this one, and it’s going to bite them in the ass. The public might think Bush is inept and in over his head, but for the most part they believe he’s honest (I don’t know how anyone can think this, but it still seems to be a majority view). They’ll side with an honest bumbling president over a bunch of sharp, conniving Congressman every time.
I don’t see the three stooges (Sharpton, Jackson, frrakan) rising up to defend this Jefferson. So i suspect we are in for a bit of enetertainment this fall.
But the point we’re trying to figure out is what law is being ingored in this case? I don’t see one. And, hell, I’d like to be informed in advance of a police search, too, so I can hide the 5 lbs of cocaine I keep under my bed. Or do only Congressmen get that extra little warning? I say screw them. I can respect that we don’t want them detained under the conditions outlined in the constitution, but if they’re doing something illegal, and their office is being used as part of that illegal act, then tough shit for them.
A couple of things:
The part of the constitution Polycarp and John Mace posted - isn’t accepting a bribe a felony? So there would no no protection from that.
If the FBI cannot be the police over the congress, who can we trust to police them? DC polices? I don’t think the capitol police is a good answer - they’re too much in the pocket of congress. Of course, by similar argument I worry who polices the White House…
Actually it was “notify the leaders.” I’m pretty sure Dennis Hastert isn’t going to protect a corrupt Democrat. And I also don’t think any Democrat would either, simply because the privelege is more important than the individual, no matter what party they are. I don’t think having to get a warrant is too much of a check on the President’s power, since the judge who issues the warrant could veyr well owe his position to the President.
Is there some degree of diplomatid immunity that Senators see to think they have?
Both sides of the aisle seem to be pissed because the agents went into his personal office. I’m with Cheesesteak. If they can come into my house, looking for one thing and find another and try me for the greater of the two crimes, then they can do the same to this representative.
The Democrats should (haven’t heard if they have yet) leave him to rot and rid themselves of curropt individuals like this fool. If they wish to reclaim a moral high ground, they must denounce him.
Pelosi asked him to resign from the Ways and Means committee today, according to the Washington Post (free registration required, but they’ve never spammed me). He declined to do so.
I’m not disagreeing that what the FBI did was legal. I’m with the consensus here. The reaction of the House leadership is not due to a matter of law, but a matter of respect. Cops should treat bums, bank presidents, pimps and members of Congress exactly the same - but I rather suspect they don’t. What happened could have been the result of cluelessness or of a big screw you to the legislative branch.
Now, if you say they are being hypocrites for caring more about a legal search of their offices than the other things that are happening, I’m right with you.
I did hear that, but so far, I’ve heard of only Pelosi. I’m saying that Howard Dean should start the train out of Jefferson City.
Whaddaya mean? Congress has the authority to subpoena the WH Chief of Staff or even the president. Show me where the Constitution says otherwise.
There’s no doubt it’s a difficult and sensitive area however the connivance of the judicial branch would be needed for this to become an issue because of repeated such searches.
The Congress has chosen the wrong case to start “standing up the the executive.” They don’t have to prove anything. The Constitution always gives Congress the last word if they have brains enough to speak it.
Can you explain this? How, specifically, does the Constitution give Congress the last word, and what is “the last word” anyway? (I’m not trying to be snarky or anything. I honestly don’t know what you mean.)
I assume you mean the power of the purse? (A much easier last word than impeachment.)
That’s too blunt an instrument. Imagine the backlash if Congress were to cut funding to the FBI. Then the terrorists would really win!
Yeah, right. One Democratic miscreant creates instant amnesia regarding the gross corruption and incompetence of the Republican party.
Personally, I think the administration should declare a “War on Corruption” and claim the power to hold congress critters in indeffinate detention without a trial as unlawful combatants. If Hastert and Pelosi are subject to a little waterboarding along the way, I wouldn’t be too upset. After all, we’re protecting America.
In short, after letting the executive branch run roughshod over the legislature for 6 years, Congress has picked a fairly stupid place to make a stand.
Well, if Congress feels that the President is not faithfully enforcing the laws or otherwise violating the oath they can impeach and convict him or her. Strictly speaking, the President serves at the pleasure of Congress although it isn’t presented that way and the only check on Congress vs. the President is the electorate. If the President vetoes a bill, Congress can override the veto and the President has no recourse. Comgress can refulse to fund the President’s programs. The President has no power to raise money and can only spend money appropriated by Congress. Congress can put any restrictions is sees fit on how the Presidents spends the money that it appropriates. And so on.
I believe that Constitutionally, the President’s function is to execute the laws passed by Congress and to be Commander in Chief. The present President has grabbed onto the latter as “all power to the executive in time of war” and Congress has acquiesed and I think that will come back to haunt you. Probably not me because I’m 83 but you and others, I believe, are going to look back on this period as disastrous to civil liberties.