Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Republicans: Just when you thought they couldn’t be much dumber
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, May 30, 2006

The Royal Republican Congress has apparently decided that while legal searches are fine for you proles, for them it is just something from which they should be exempt:
US Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), chairman of the US House Judiciary Committee, said Tuesday that he intends to draft legislation that would shield congressional documents and materials from being seized in searches similar to the FBI raid on the congressional office of Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) earlier this month. Speaking during the committee's Tuesday oversight hearing on the constitutional questions raised by the raid, Sensenbrenner also said that although the constitution's Speech or Debate Clause will not protect members of Congress from prosecution stemming from activities outside of legitimate legislative acts, the clause prevents the executive branch from seizing documents created in the course of the legitimate legislative process
Let's be clear about something. Beside the fact that the timing couldn't be worse, if there were clear "Constitutional questions" arising from the "Speech or Debate Clause", Sensenbrenner wouldn't be drafting legislation. He'd be insisting the Constitution be followed.

Oh, and Mr. Sensenbrenner? Unless the documents 'created in the course of the legitimate legislative process' are evidence in a crime investigation they're most likely not going to be siezed. But Harry Reid and his boxing tickets thank you anyway.

Speaking of a crime, that's a good descripiton of this proposed legislation. Or maybe "crying shame" is a better one. Go ahead, please, exempt yourselves from something every other American is required to endure. And suffer the consequences of your arrogance.

If you want to quote the Constitution, Mr. Sensenbrenner, try this:
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
And that goes for you Yahoos as well.

Idiots.

UPDATE: Tom Bevan weighs in:
A good part of the brilliance and the success behind the 1994 Republican revolution is that it tapped into a deep vein of public disgust toward incumbent members of Congress who had grown arrogant and accustomed to a sense of entitlement. Newt Gingrich understood what a powerful political force this could be, and it's no coincidence the list of reforms contained in the Contract with America began with this: "FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress."
Exactly. Like I've said, "'06 is looking a lot more like '94 every day".
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
I guess, according to his logic, he could declare the executive branch null and void.
 
Written By: Matt
URL: http://
OK. Its getting harder and harder to not believe its all a game where Republicans and Democrats just take turns.

It can’t be anything less than the Republicans turn to step down. They must want to garauntee that will happen while at the same time making Congress even less accountable for benefit of both sides.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
We need more than two parties in this country, desperately.
 
Written By: kirk
URL: http://
Well done.

Cheers.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
If Congress subpoenas documents from the executive branch, the executive (regardless of party) seems always to claim "executive privilege". Those words are no where in the constitution but in practice they seem to have more weight than several amendments. If the executive branch has an implied executive privilege, doesn’t the congressional and judicial branches have the same implied privileges as well?

 
Written By: cindy bravo
URL: http://
CindyB:
The unanimous decision held that the Supreme Court has not only the power established in Marbury v. Madison to rule a law invalid for conflicting with constitutional provisions, but also power to decide how the Constitution limits the President’s powers; that the Constitution provides for laws enforceable on a president; and that executive privilege does not apply to "demonstrably relevant" evidence in criminal cases.
So, no.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
It would help, cindy b, if you knew what ’executive’ privilege is and why it is presumed to exist, in some cases (and why courts and legislatures don’t have ’executive’ privileges and don’t need them). (Didn’t help Nixon much with those tapes, did it?) You might try a little research before shooting off your keyboard.
 
Written By: JorgXMcKie
URL: http://
Ouch!

Sounds like those darn activist judges putting things in the constituion that the founders never wrote nor intended. They really were not big fans of the imperial presidency.

 
Written By: cindyb
URL: http://
If the executive branch has an implied executive privilege, doesn’t the congressional and judicial branches have the same implied privileges as well?
Except, of course, that the legislative branch can simply make its privileges explicit by creating a law.
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
Except the legislative branch has to get it’s laws approved by the executive branch before they take effect. Last time I checked anyway.

Still, this is beginning to look like the year when I vote against people, rather than for them.
And I haven’t forgotten my precious senators, even though I can’t get at them for a couple more years.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
My vote will turn on how my Congresswoman votes on this. Sensenbrenner and his allies are subverting the Constitution with this move and that is something I can tolerate regardless of politics.
 
Written By: AGJ
URL: http://averagegayjoe.blogspot.com
Make that: "that is something I canNOT tolerate".
 
Written By: AGJ
URL: http://averagegayjoe.blogspot.com

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider