About Unconstitutional Search prompts foul cries from Congressional Republicians
|May 24th, 2006||#1|
| || |
Unconstitutional Search prompts foul cries from Congressional Republicians info
First of all, Representative Jefferson is most likely GUILTY (the FBI caught him on tape), he was a slime before this bribery case, even Nancy Pelosi cannot stand him. He's another Duke Cunningham, the sooner he's gone the better and that seems to be the opinion of BOTH parties. So I not here to defend Jefferson.
But even if he is corrupt, what part of the Constitution gives Bush the right to launch his own investigatations of members of Congress. The Constitution provides protections specifically against this sort of thing. The normal procudure is that the Justice Department (which reports to the Presidencey) requests 'permission' to search Congress people. Bush sought no accord, he simply acted without informing anybody. Here is yet ANOTHER example (wiretapping, illegal detention, etc) of Bush blatently ignoring the Constitutional limits of his authority, and for political reasons to boot.
As most of you know, I have no love for Conservative base. So I would like to salute Congressional Republicans such as Mr. Hastert and Mr Boeher for tempararily putting away ideologic/political differences with the Democrats and voicing their fury at this gross breach of the Constitution.
|May 24th, 2006||#3|
| || |
I think this is quiet a scary precedent. The point of whether he is guilty or not isn't the issue here. The point is that constitutional laws were broken to protect members of the House of Parliament. If you don't react to this, you actually hand all power to one man, which is then controlled by none! These laws were made to prevent this situation from happening and now they are in the bin. Remember even Hitler usurped power along democratic ways and Bush is just usurping in a fashion that is not yet too late to stop.
Oh and Phoenix, if you read the article you also see the names of Republican senators.... what your opinion on that?
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
Sir Winston Churchill
|May 24th, 2006||#4|
| || |
Project much?? info
"The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental." - John Steinbeck
|May 24th, 2006||#5|
| || |
What exactly was unconstitutional about the search? They had a warrant, it was also not his home, but his office. I also don't see how the Debate and Speech Clause protects them from something like this.
You guys are jumping to conclusions. NO Constitutional laws were broken. Not a single itty bitty one. They want to prove that one was, but that's going to be a stretch, esp. since Congress wasn't in session at the time of the search.
I don't think this a POTUS vs Congress or a Democrat v Republican et al issue at all. I think it is a case of congress critters getting mad because they are NOT above the law. They've never liked having to follow the same rules and laws we lowly "Joe Public's" (as they call us) have to.
Let's also not get so dramatic as to pretend it was one man that ordered the search. The DoJ obviously felt they had just cause, sought a warrant, received it, and executed it.
At this time, I see no cause for alarm and no reason at all to start sounding the "chicken little" alarms, there was a lengthy investigation, a legal warrant, therefore legal search.
Ut ceteri vivant.
|May 24th, 2006||#7|
| || |
Actually, it was his home AND his office, but thats a moot point. Nor does it matter whether Congress was in session or not. The issue is seperation of powers. There is a fine line etched in sand about the boundries between the executive and legislative branches. The unconstitutionality is this: The Executive branch is specifically prohibited from searching the grounds of the legislative branch by the constitution. This is known as the Speech and Debate Clause. The 1972 SCOTUS case, US vs Brewster (which by coincidence involved the bribary of a Congressman) established the precedent that "speech and debate be defined broadly, in order to preserve the independence of the Legislative branch from the Executive". This question that the Bushies will try and make is that Congressional Offices are not covered by this. But given the ruling of U.S vs Brewster its doubtful the court will accept that, (I think the pres knows this too, -just a hunch).
Nor is this about not letting the FBI execute a warrent in Congress. This is not the first time the FBI has shown up at a Congressmans office. The difference is in times before (such as Cunningham), the judiciary has got an accord from congress to execute a warrent of a Congress persons office. Not only did the judicary not get this accord, it didn't even ask for it, they just sent in the Emporor's Imperial Stormtroopers to ransack Jeffersons office. Thats specifically what the Constitition is designed to prevent.
I accept the fact that Liberals and Conservatives dont share the same values. I also accept that conservatives make the rules, being that they are the ones in power (for the moment). But this issue isnt about Liberal vs. Conservative or Democrat vs. Republican. This is about a President that has an attitude that he is responsible to NO ONE, not the constitution, not the American people, nor Congress. The problem is as Bush's popularity falls, this administration grows increasing Imperial, not even Nixon overstepped his authority in the way this president has here.
I am glad to see the Republicans finally standing up to Bush to remind them his power doesn't superceed theirs.
Last edited by mmarsh; May 24th, 2006 at 14:16..
|May 24th, 2006||#8|
| || |
Legal warrant obtained by and executed by the FBI. Don't see a problem.
Of course, if you want Congress to be above the law and police themselves, fine. I don't. Does LE get an accord from my co-workers to search my home/office if they have enough evidence to obtain a warrant? No.
Nothing that occurred was unconstitutional. If a court decides it was, fine, but I don't see how they could. I just finished reading the Debate and Speech Clause and while I'm not a lawyer, this incident doesn't seem to violate it at all.
Seems like a case of Congress not liking "what's good for the goose."