For the first time in the history of our Country, Federal agents raided a Congressional Office on May 20, 2006. The office belonged to Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA), and was conducted with a legal search warrant obtained after witness interviews and wire taps gave authorities reason to believe Rep. Jefferson had, or was going to bribe a foreign official. Nine months earlier, a similar raid on Jefferson’s home produced $90,000 in cash in his freezer.

Early next week, William Jefferson is taking his case to court arguing the raid was a violation of the Constitutional principle of Separation of Powers, and the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution. On May 24, 2006 Nancy Pelosi and Dennis Hastert agreed, issuing a joint statement:
“The Justice Department was wrong to seize records from Congressman Jefferson’s office in violation of the Constitutional principle of Separation of Powers, the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution, and the practice of the last 219 years. These constitutional principles were not designed by the Founding Fathers to place anyone above the law. Rather, they were designed to protect the Congress and the American people from abuses of power, and those principles deserve to be vigorously defended”

The Speech or Debate clause referred to here is Article I section 6 which states members of Congress “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.”

For starters, this clause only prevents the arrest of Congressman while in attendance, or travelling to and from Congress. (Incidentally this clause is used by Congressman to avoid ever paying a speeding ticket). This clause however makes no mention of conducting a legal search of Congressional offices. It is also important to note the clause holds an exception for treason, felony and breach of peace, therefore a search of his office to garner evidence in a felony case would be exempt from this protection.

The leading Supreme Court case on the scope of the Speech or Debate Clause is United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501 (1972), In Brewster, the Court stated, “[A] Member of Congress may be prosecuted under a criminal statute provided that the Government’s case does not rely on legislative acts or the motivation for legislative acts. A legislative act has consistently been defined as an act generally done in Congress in relation to the business before it. In sum, the Speech or Debate Clause prohibits inquiry only into those things generally said or done in the House or the Senate in the performance of official duties and into the motivation for those acts.”

In light of this, I do not see the Supreme Court ruling the Speech or Debate clause applies to this case. The latter argument of Separation of Powers is even more ludicrous, and quite frankly I feel it is insulting to the American people. By using that argument what Rep. Jefferson (and both Pelosi and Hastert in their joint statement) are saying is, Congressman cannot be investigated by the Judicial Branch of our Government.

Shame on both Nancy Pelosi and Dennis Hastert for making that statement last year instead of asking for Jefferson’s immediate resignation. Shame on the people of Louisiana who reelected him in November even after this scandal broke. And shame on William Jefferson for attempting to use our Constitution to avoid prosecution.

You sir, are not above the law.

Sphere: Related Content

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Congress, Constitution, Supreme Court