# What's with the Congressional outrage... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 26, 2006, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-congressional-outrage/358302 "2006-05-26T12:42:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Renob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Renob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renob)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2006, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-congressional-outrage/358302/21 "2006-05-26T18:49:27Z")
> [@Merijeek](#): > > You’re welcome to give them that much credit if you’d like. > > I don’t give them that much credit. > > -Joe As someone once said, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. You made a ridiculous statement that most Congressmen have something to hide. If you are going to assert this, then please provide proof. It’s not simply enough to say that you think it and that settles it. If you think most are dishonest, then please give us the basis for that assumption. If not, then accept that your statement is completely without foundation. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2006, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-congressional-outrage/358302/22 "2006-05-26T18:51:28Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > It certainly should, but it certainly doesn’t seem like it. The president is asserting broad powers to refuse to submit to demands for documents and to refuse to answer questions about governmental activities. Has the Supreme Court ever ruled on **that?** I mean, claiming “executive privilege” didn’t do Nixon much good. ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2006, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-congressional-outrage/358302/23 "2006-05-26T18:53:55Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Well, you’re asserting **all** Congresscritters have something to hide, even more so than the average citizen. Don’t you think there might be a few honest ones? Or is it flatly impossible for an honest person to get elected to Congress? Actually, yes. That’s why I deliberately changed the word “All” to “Most” in my post. It’s right there in post #2. -Joe ---
**Author:** ![jimmmy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/73ab20/32.png) [@jimmmy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jimmmy)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2006, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-congressional-outrage/358302/24 "2006-05-26T19:01:07Z")
I think the argument is that the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch are supposed to be co-equal. If this (or Hillary’s or Jeb or McCain’s) administration can use police power to search congressional offices and seize congressional records, it puts a huge source of intimidation and power on the side of the Executive Branch. Imagine if a Nancy Pelosi Appointee (or the Senate Armed Services Committee) could decide to search the Oval Office and seize records. They can subpoena or request specific records They cannot, however. send some guys over to ransack and search and seize. It is not just Hasert From HERE-------------- \*In this case, both Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi are speaking with one voice, challenging the administration’s action. Demonstrating how rankled House members are, Rep. James Sensenbrenner Jr., R-Wis., chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has scheduled a hearing for Tuesday. The subject: “Reckless Justice: Did the Saturday Night Raid of Congress Trample the Constitution?” And Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., told The New York Times he was concerned enough about the raid to seek a legal opinion.\* ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2006, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-congressional-outrage/358302/25 "2006-05-26T19:24:12Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Has the Supreme Court ever ruled on **that?** I mean, claiming “executive privilege” didn’t do Nixon much good. It hasn’t, and it’s not likely to any time soon. In any case, there’s a big difference between the power to subpoena and the power to physically search without permission. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2006, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-congressional-outrage/358302/26 "2006-05-26T19:40:36Z")
Consider this scenario. FBI head J. Edgar Rove has been collecting files on people, and some Congressmen feel, has been abusing authority. An investigation is about to begin. Rove, with a warrant from a tame judge, claims this Congressman is a terrorist spy or somesuch, and raids his offices, at least seeing what the guy has and maybe finding something incriminating. That isn’t what happened in this case, but without a precedent of advanced notification, it could happen. To oppose notification, the DoJ would have to assert that the leadership of Congress is as crooked as the suspected Member. This, and the Administration refusing to turn over information that might indicate they did something wrong at the same time as raiding the office of a Congressman to show that he did something wrong. On the bright side, Gonzalez seems to be fostering a new spirit of cooperation across party lines. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2006, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-congressional-outrage/358302/27 "2006-05-26T23:43:04Z")
Gonzalez will say it is to prevent terrorism and therefore no previous laws apply. ---
**Author:** ![Frostillicus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Frostillicus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frostillicus)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2006, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-congressional-outrage/358302/28 "2006-05-27T01:37:58Z")
> [@Monty22002](#): > > Nervous that they might find fake Dan Rather-made documents someplace? Wow! You really don’t have the slightest idea what you are talking about, do you? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2006, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-congressional-outrage/358302/29 "2006-05-27T03:49:49Z")
> [@Monty22002](#): > > Nervous that they might find fake Dan Rather-made documents someplace? In a Congresscritter’s files? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![BarnOwl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e95f7d/32.png) [@BarnOwl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BarnOwl)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2006, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-congressional-outrage/358302/30 "2006-05-27T03:52:08Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > The specific precedents I had in mind were that the queen is not permitted to enter parliament without an invitation and the president does not enter the floor of Congress without invitation. I don’t know whether the latter is the result of an explicit bar or just assumed protocol. > > However, the idea of such a restriction has support in political theory of the separation of powers. In the context of federalism, John Marshall said the power to tax is the power to destroy. \*\*In the context of separation of powers, there would seem to be a parallel. If the executive has the power to investigate members of the legislature by barging in on its sanctum in order to find evidence of crimes, does that not disturb the co-equal status of the two branches of government? > > It’s settled principle that the executive is never _required_ to pursue criminal charges; that’s a matter within the executive’s discretion. Doesn’t that set up the executive with the power to punish political opponents in the legislature with police action without check\*\*? Cogent argument. I think that’s just what was offered up by some sensible person on Hardball tonight (Friday). Thanks, **acsenray**. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2006, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-congressional-outrage/358302/31 "2006-05-27T13:08:32Z")
> [@BarnOwl](#): > > Cogent argument. I think that’s just what was offered up by some sensible person on Hardball tonight (Friday). > > Thanks, **acsenray**. Thanks back at ya. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-congressional-outrage/358302.md?page=1)