Maybe The House Leaders Should Have Kept Their Mouths Shut
Captain Ed brings us this wonderful piece of news. A majority of Americans see no problem with the search conducted on Representative William Jefferson, according to the new ABC poll.
In the rift between Congress and the Justice Department, Americans side overwhelmingly with law enforcement: Regardless of precedent and the separation of powers, 86 percent say the FBI should be allowed to search a Congress member's office if it has a warrant.
That view is broadly bipartisan, this ABC News poll finds, ranging from 78 percent among Democrats to 94 percent of Republicans.
The issue erupted last week, after the FBI searched the offices of Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., in a corruption investigation. Congress leaders objected, and George W. Bush put a 45-day hold on the seized documents to allow for negotiations.
The issue arises at a time of various investigations of alleged wrongdoing in Congress, including those focused on the activities of lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
Indeed this poll finds broad public skepticism about congressional ethics: Sixty-five percent of Americans give a negative rating to the ethics and honesty of members of Congress. More, 54 percent, rate their own member's ethics positively, but that's down from 69 percent in a 1989 poll.
Nonetheless, support for FBI searches is about equally high whether people see Congress as honest or not. That suggests that the interests of law enforcement to investigate wrongdoing simply prevails in the public's mind over concerns about separation of powers, precedent, and the possibility prosecutors could use such searches to try to intimidate lawmakers. The question in this poll described both sides of the argument.
The last paragraph shows that ABC News, much like the New York Times, fails to grasp the Constitution. There are no separation of powers issues involved in the Jefferson search. The executive branch contains all the law enforcement powers. The Justice Department falls under the auspice of the executive branch. This was set forth in the Constitution by the Framers. ABC News fails to understand what the term "separation of powers" truly means. It doesn't mean that the executive can't perform its duly enumerated powers, but rather that it can't hold the same power as the legislative and judicial branches; that being, it cannot make laws or interpret them.
Federalist #47 actually addresses this point:
His [Montesquieu's] meaning, as his own words import, and still more conclusively as illustrated by the example in his eye, can amount to no more than this, that where the WHOLE power of one department is exercised by the same hands which possess the WHOLE power of another department, the fundamental principles of a free constitution are subverted. ...
... The magistrate in whom the whole executive power resides cannot of himself make a law, though he can put a negative on every law; nor administer justice in person, though he has the appointment of those who do administer it. The judges can exercise no executive prerogative, though they are shoots from the executive stock; ...
"When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person or body,'' says he, "there can be no liberty, because apprehensions may arise lest THE SAME monarch or senate should ENACT tyrannical laws to EXECUTE them in a tyrannical manner.
The ideas behind the separation of powers was derived to ensure that no branch had any inherent authority to execute the powers of the other branches. If the executive were to ignore a crime that has been committed by a member of the Congress, it would be lacking in its duties. As a matter of fact, if the executive had refused to execute it's proper law enforcement duties, that would technically and legally be grounds for impeachment.
The reaction by both Speaker Hastert and Minority Leader Pelosi shows an attitude that has recently arisen in the House, and has been plainly obvious in the Senate for some time, which is a sort of pseudo-imperialism. That they are, in essence, untouchable by the law; that they are above the law. This isn't true as the prosecution of "Duke" Cunningham has shown. The Abramoff scandal has many in Congress scrambling to cover their tracks (such as the moves by Harry Reid to avoid any questions regarding his Abramoff money). Likewise, when the Abramoff scandal broke, do we remember the amount of people in Congress suddenly rushing to either give the money back, or cover their tracks?
Many people chalked this up as "business as usual" for Congress. Many, though, were incensed. While much of the money was legitimate for some, many showed, with their actions, that they, too, were unduly influenced by that money. The fallout from this led to the resignation of House Majority Leader DeLay, and a brand new, intra-House election for the vacancy. All three major candidates--John Shadegg, John Boehner, and Roy Blunt--stood on platforms of reform int he House. (Roy Blunt was crushed by the blogosphere once his threats against bloggers came up, and his ties to the Abramoff scandal rose to prominence.) Since the election of Representative Boehner, the House GOP has worked hard at making reforms to the lobbying practices of the Hill. It's not perfect, but it's better than what was there.
The Jefferson case just happens to fall in the middle of this mess, and his actions during Hurrican Katrina only invited further investigation and speculation. What was he taking from his home? Why was it so important that he had to take control of a National Guard team that was helping with rescue and recovery? What was that important? That question was never answered. On the heels of the FBI's acknowledgement that he accepted a $10,000 bribe from an undercover officer, and their admission that they found $90,000 wrapped in tin-foil in his home freezer, they moved ahead with the next step of their investigation. That, of course, was a request for records. Four times, they asked nicely and politely. Representative Jefferson turned down each request. With no other alternative, the FBI sought, received, and executed a search warrant.
Immediately, those in the "Imperial" House threw a tizzy. They cited the separation of powers non-argument (which is thoroughly debunked above), and the Article I protections of those in Congress:
Section 6. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. 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; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.
While it is true that they are not able to be arrested while attending Congress on official business, this doesn't prevent their arrest anywhere else, including their offices. Likewise, only they are mentioned in this privilege. When it comes to things such as an investigation, they are afforded the same protections that we "little people" possess. That being their offices can't be searched without a warrant. NOTHING in Section 6 grants them complete immunity. They are citizens of the United States, and not above the laws. Bribery is a crime, and as it stands right now, Representative Jefferson stands accused (not charged; remember that) of that crime. He will now go through the same process that anyone else would have to.
Not only are the disputes of the House leaders not relevant, but they portray an attitude that has many within the electorate jaded; the debate between the Geraghtyites and Tapscottians in the blogosphere is evidence of that as the center-right struggles over whether or not they should support the GOP in the coming mid-terms. People are sick of seeing this sort of behavior erupt from Congress. The average person witnesses this sort of reaction, and shrugs it's shoulders. "Business as usual, what else is new?" Those people are justified in their initial reaction, but they are also the first ones to state that they're stepping up to punish the party. It's a vicious circle where their own inaction simply compounds the problem. Instead, they should be stepping forward and challenging those in power for their actions. A sort of "How dare you think you're above the law, and can't be touched" approach is better than simply keeping our heads int he sand.
This poll shows that. It shows that america has looked at the House leaders, and told them to shut up. People want results, not bureaucracy. People want their elected officials to listen, not blow them off once they're reelected. The status quo can no longer stand in DC, and people are waking up. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance," Thomas Jefferson wrote, and he was not simply talking about national security. He was also inferring that every man and woman in America has a duty to "mind the store," so to speak. Only an awake, informed, and active electorate can keep the government from becoming imperialistic. The nutters on the Left want people to believe that imperialism drives the bush Administration. Nothing could be further from the truth, and when confronted with a "put up or shut up" argument from our side, the Left can offer no solid evidence or proof of their allegations.
Their is nothing wrong with the investigation into Representative Jefferson. The only problem I see is that some members in Congress seem to think that the laws don't apply to them. And, of course, the MSM is right there pimping that line. It's wrong, and it goes to show just how bad things really are. The MSM is willing to accept the explanation of privilege from the House leaders, yet they don't question them when it comes to the proper interpretation of those privileges. They simply parrot the status quo line. When both groups do this, it only angers the electorate even more.
Publius II
Captain Ed brings us this wonderful piece of news. A majority of Americans see no problem with the search conducted on Representative William Jefferson, according to the new ABC poll.
In the rift between Congress and the Justice Department, Americans side overwhelmingly with law enforcement: Regardless of precedent and the separation of powers, 86 percent say the FBI should be allowed to search a Congress member's office if it has a warrant.
That view is broadly bipartisan, this ABC News poll finds, ranging from 78 percent among Democrats to 94 percent of Republicans.
The issue erupted last week, after the FBI searched the offices of Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., in a corruption investigation. Congress leaders objected, and George W. Bush put a 45-day hold on the seized documents to allow for negotiations.
The issue arises at a time of various investigations of alleged wrongdoing in Congress, including those focused on the activities of lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
Indeed this poll finds broad public skepticism about congressional ethics: Sixty-five percent of Americans give a negative rating to the ethics and honesty of members of Congress. More, 54 percent, rate their own member's ethics positively, but that's down from 69 percent in a 1989 poll.
Nonetheless, support for FBI searches is about equally high whether people see Congress as honest or not. That suggests that the interests of law enforcement to investigate wrongdoing simply prevails in the public's mind over concerns about separation of powers, precedent, and the possibility prosecutors could use such searches to try to intimidate lawmakers. The question in this poll described both sides of the argument.
The last paragraph shows that ABC News, much like the New York Times, fails to grasp the Constitution. There are no separation of powers issues involved in the Jefferson search. The executive branch contains all the law enforcement powers. The Justice Department falls under the auspice of the executive branch. This was set forth in the Constitution by the Framers. ABC News fails to understand what the term "separation of powers" truly means. It doesn't mean that the executive can't perform its duly enumerated powers, but rather that it can't hold the same power as the legislative and judicial branches; that being, it cannot make laws or interpret them.
Federalist #47 actually addresses this point:
His [Montesquieu's] meaning, as his own words import, and still more conclusively as illustrated by the example in his eye, can amount to no more than this, that where the WHOLE power of one department is exercised by the same hands which possess the WHOLE power of another department, the fundamental principles of a free constitution are subverted. ...
... The magistrate in whom the whole executive power resides cannot of himself make a law, though he can put a negative on every law; nor administer justice in person, though he has the appointment of those who do administer it. The judges can exercise no executive prerogative, though they are shoots from the executive stock; ...
"When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person or body,'' says he, "there can be no liberty, because apprehensions may arise lest THE SAME monarch or senate should ENACT tyrannical laws to EXECUTE them in a tyrannical manner.
The ideas behind the separation of powers was derived to ensure that no branch had any inherent authority to execute the powers of the other branches. If the executive were to ignore a crime that has been committed by a member of the Congress, it would be lacking in its duties. As a matter of fact, if the executive had refused to execute it's proper law enforcement duties, that would technically and legally be grounds for impeachment.
The reaction by both Speaker Hastert and Minority Leader Pelosi shows an attitude that has recently arisen in the House, and has been plainly obvious in the Senate for some time, which is a sort of pseudo-imperialism. That they are, in essence, untouchable by the law; that they are above the law. This isn't true as the prosecution of "Duke" Cunningham has shown. The Abramoff scandal has many in Congress scrambling to cover their tracks (such as the moves by Harry Reid to avoid any questions regarding his Abramoff money). Likewise, when the Abramoff scandal broke, do we remember the amount of people in Congress suddenly rushing to either give the money back, or cover their tracks?
Many people chalked this up as "business as usual" for Congress. Many, though, were incensed. While much of the money was legitimate for some, many showed, with their actions, that they, too, were unduly influenced by that money. The fallout from this led to the resignation of House Majority Leader DeLay, and a brand new, intra-House election for the vacancy. All three major candidates--John Shadegg, John Boehner, and Roy Blunt--stood on platforms of reform int he House. (Roy Blunt was crushed by the blogosphere once his threats against bloggers came up, and his ties to the Abramoff scandal rose to prominence.) Since the election of Representative Boehner, the House GOP has worked hard at making reforms to the lobbying practices of the Hill. It's not perfect, but it's better than what was there.
The Jefferson case just happens to fall in the middle of this mess, and his actions during Hurrican Katrina only invited further investigation and speculation. What was he taking from his home? Why was it so important that he had to take control of a National Guard team that was helping with rescue and recovery? What was that important? That question was never answered. On the heels of the FBI's acknowledgement that he accepted a $10,000 bribe from an undercover officer, and their admission that they found $90,000 wrapped in tin-foil in his home freezer, they moved ahead with the next step of their investigation. That, of course, was a request for records. Four times, they asked nicely and politely. Representative Jefferson turned down each request. With no other alternative, the FBI sought, received, and executed a search warrant.
Immediately, those in the "Imperial" House threw a tizzy. They cited the separation of powers non-argument (which is thoroughly debunked above), and the Article I protections of those in Congress:
Section 6. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. 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; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.
While it is true that they are not able to be arrested while attending Congress on official business, this doesn't prevent their arrest anywhere else, including their offices. Likewise, only they are mentioned in this privilege. When it comes to things such as an investigation, they are afforded the same protections that we "little people" possess. That being their offices can't be searched without a warrant. NOTHING in Section 6 grants them complete immunity. They are citizens of the United States, and not above the laws. Bribery is a crime, and as it stands right now, Representative Jefferson stands accused (not charged; remember that) of that crime. He will now go through the same process that anyone else would have to.
Not only are the disputes of the House leaders not relevant, but they portray an attitude that has many within the electorate jaded; the debate between the Geraghtyites and Tapscottians in the blogosphere is evidence of that as the center-right struggles over whether or not they should support the GOP in the coming mid-terms. People are sick of seeing this sort of behavior erupt from Congress. The average person witnesses this sort of reaction, and shrugs it's shoulders. "Business as usual, what else is new?" Those people are justified in their initial reaction, but they are also the first ones to state that they're stepping up to punish the party. It's a vicious circle where their own inaction simply compounds the problem. Instead, they should be stepping forward and challenging those in power for their actions. A sort of "How dare you think you're above the law, and can't be touched" approach is better than simply keeping our heads int he sand.
This poll shows that. It shows that america has looked at the House leaders, and told them to shut up. People want results, not bureaucracy. People want their elected officials to listen, not blow them off once they're reelected. The status quo can no longer stand in DC, and people are waking up. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance," Thomas Jefferson wrote, and he was not simply talking about national security. He was also inferring that every man and woman in America has a duty to "mind the store," so to speak. Only an awake, informed, and active electorate can keep the government from becoming imperialistic. The nutters on the Left want people to believe that imperialism drives the bush Administration. Nothing could be further from the truth, and when confronted with a "put up or shut up" argument from our side, the Left can offer no solid evidence or proof of their allegations.
Their is nothing wrong with the investigation into Representative Jefferson. The only problem I see is that some members in Congress seem to think that the laws don't apply to them. And, of course, the MSM is right there pimping that line. It's wrong, and it goes to show just how bad things really are. The MSM is willing to accept the explanation of privilege from the House leaders, yet they don't question them when it comes to the proper interpretation of those privileges. They simply parrot the status quo line. When both groups do this, it only angers the electorate even more.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 11:34 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home