Chicago Sun Times Editorial - Raid on congressman's office defies tradition, not Constitution
Chicago Sun Times Editorial - Raid on congressman's office defies tradition, not Constitution
Copyright by The Chicago Sun Times
May 30, 2006
The FBI's raid on the congressional offices of Rep. William Jefferson spawned an unusual bipartisan rebellion last week, making it appear the search was a clear violation of the constitutional separation of powers. But we're not so sure the U.S. Constitution endows each lawmaker with a little sanctum, forever walled off from law enforcement -- especially when a congressman ignores a subpoena and the FBI has a warrant and what appear to be pretty solid motives.
Jefferson, a Louisiana Democrat who represents New Orleans, is being investigated for allegedly taking bribes to promote business ventures in Africa. Two people have already pleaded guilty to bribing him, and the FBI says it has a tape of him taking $100,000 in bribes last summer. It says an earlier raid on his house yielded $90,000 of that cash stashed in his freezer, wrapped in foil and stuffed into plastic containers. Jefferson says "There are two sides to this story," but he hasn't told his yet, other than to deny wrongdoing.
Critics of the raid said it violated the Constitution's "speech and debate" protections. The relevant section says that lawmakers "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 be questioned in any other place."
There is no explicit ban on searching congressional offices -- it's more a matter of tradition. Tradition shouldn't give lawmakers immunity from criminal investigations.
The FBI said the raid was necessary because Jefferson ignored subpoenas for the information it sought. It's hard to see what the feds could have or should have done differently. If they had strong reasons for getting the documents and a proper search warrant, should they have refrained just because the tradition is that, in more than 200 years, the executive branch had never raided a congressional office before? And why should Jefferson's office be sacrosanct, but not his house?
A good chunk of the criticism -- much of it, no doubt, from Democrats -- is due to the fact that President Bush has been testing the boundaries of presidential authority, most controversially with his warrantless eavesdropping program. Many simply don't trust him and view the raid as another step toward a police state. But House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, a Republican from Yorkville, is among the raid's harshest critics. He was instrumental in getting Bush to agree to seal the seized documents for 45 days while lawyers work out a resolution. That likely will include guidelines for future searches of congressional offices.
There is, of course, one way to make this whole debate moot. If there wasn't corruption in Washington, then the FBI wouldn't have much to investigate.
Copyright by The Chicago Sun Times
May 30, 2006
The FBI's raid on the congressional offices of Rep. William Jefferson spawned an unusual bipartisan rebellion last week, making it appear the search was a clear violation of the constitutional separation of powers. But we're not so sure the U.S. Constitution endows each lawmaker with a little sanctum, forever walled off from law enforcement -- especially when a congressman ignores a subpoena and the FBI has a warrant and what appear to be pretty solid motives.
Jefferson, a Louisiana Democrat who represents New Orleans, is being investigated for allegedly taking bribes to promote business ventures in Africa. Two people have already pleaded guilty to bribing him, and the FBI says it has a tape of him taking $100,000 in bribes last summer. It says an earlier raid on his house yielded $90,000 of that cash stashed in his freezer, wrapped in foil and stuffed into plastic containers. Jefferson says "There are two sides to this story," but he hasn't told his yet, other than to deny wrongdoing.
Critics of the raid said it violated the Constitution's "speech and debate" protections. The relevant section says that lawmakers "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 be questioned in any other place."
There is no explicit ban on searching congressional offices -- it's more a matter of tradition. Tradition shouldn't give lawmakers immunity from criminal investigations.
The FBI said the raid was necessary because Jefferson ignored subpoenas for the information it sought. It's hard to see what the feds could have or should have done differently. If they had strong reasons for getting the documents and a proper search warrant, should they have refrained just because the tradition is that, in more than 200 years, the executive branch had never raided a congressional office before? And why should Jefferson's office be sacrosanct, but not his house?
A good chunk of the criticism -- much of it, no doubt, from Democrats -- is due to the fact that President Bush has been testing the boundaries of presidential authority, most controversially with his warrantless eavesdropping program. Many simply don't trust him and view the raid as another step toward a police state. But House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, a Republican from Yorkville, is among the raid's harshest critics. He was instrumental in getting Bush to agree to seal the seized documents for 45 days while lawyers work out a resolution. That likely will include guidelines for future searches of congressional offices.
There is, of course, one way to make this whole debate moot. If there wasn't corruption in Washington, then the FBI wouldn't have much to investigate.
posted by Carlos T Mock at 11:35 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home