   FBI raiding congressman's office called "unconstitutional" by lawmakers.
Excuse me?They had a warrant.  How is this unconstitutional?  Oh WAIT.  Because they're the legistlative branch, they can say the executive branch is suppressing them... I guess?  Regardless, this is for a criminal investigation regarding.  How the hell are they supposed to carry out an investigation if they're not allowed to collect evidence?-Greven   
  First, they came for the journalists, and I didn't stand up because journalists are dicks.Next, they came for the politicians, and I didn't stand up because life improved massively.The congressmen didn't stand up for the American public against Fatherland Security; the American public shouldn't stand up for the congressmen. America would improve massively if those inbreds were shipped off to Gitmo.   ;  I'm conflicted on this. On one hand, if we didn't let the feds search the places of the legislative branch congress would have too much power. On the other hand, the feds currently have the power to do whatever the heck they really want right now. Funny how when a democrat gets into trouble the feds have no problems getting warrents and stuff, but when Tom Delay did it...eh, well, I'm not educated enough in that regard to really say what is corrupt and what isn't.Speaking of corrupt, I can say this: it surprises me how this investigation goes national at the same time the democrats launch their "Culture of Corruption" campaign. Interesting times, interesting times.   ;  Here's my two cents. I understand why Congress is upset. It sets a precedent with the potential to seriously impair checks and balances. Today it's a corrupt member of Congress, tomorrow it's a crusading member of Congress investigating Executive malfeasance. As Trent Lott said, "We don't want a situation where the FBI just shows up at will and starts rummaging around here." [1]On the other hand, this Congress is notorious for not taking checks and balances seriously, completely ignoring the implications of Bush's total misuse and abuse of Presidential signing statements [2],  [3]. So in some respects, it seems the deserve what they get. Quote:Attorney General Alberto Gonzales tried to strike a conciliatory tone, saying, "We have a great deal of respect for the Congress as a coequal branch of government." But he also defended the search: "We have an obligation to the American people to pursue the evidence where it exists." In response to Gonzales, I would quote Madison from The Federalist No. 51: In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. This is something to remember the next time you hear a politician or a pundit speak of "coequal branches of government". Politically, I think it interesting that the FBI raided the office of a Democrat, when the investigations flowing from the Cunningham, Delay and Abramoff scandals haven't fully played out and which promise to take down dozens of Republicans. This move, which appears likely to end up before the Supreme Court, will conveniently drag those investigations out beyond this year's elections.  ;Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?We need some system, but to find the ballance the fits all portions of the goverment with equal power that everyone agrees to is nigh impossible. There is corruption in the world, and there is almost no way of telling how a person will react once he/she gets into power. We cannot balance the power in our goverment, it will always be uneven. If we have someone watch the powers, then the watchers hold the power. If we have two powers, then the powers will fight, and one will come out on top, or the two will merge. I think the best system would be no power, and all hold the goverment, but then chaos will fall as many corrupted people abuse that postion.   ;  I really don't understand why people would be upset over this.  It was not "The FBI showing up at will".  They had a warrant, issued by the judicial branch.  If it turns out that the motiviation for the warrant was false then buy all means hang 'em all but until then the FBI has an obligation to pursue the case wherever it takes them.  Being a legislator does not make you immune to this.To throw that idiotic phrase back in thier (the legislators protesting this) faces - "You should have no objection if you have nothing to hide".   ;  On the topic of corruption: the speaker of the house is also in trouble. Hmm, maybe that is why he was so outspoked against the FBI...or maybe that's why the FBI is after him now [grin]   ;Quote:Original post by Anon MikeI really don't understand why people would be upset over this.  It was not "The FBI showing up at will".  They had a warrant, issued by the judicial branch.  If it turns out that the motiviation for the warrant was false then buy all means hang 'em all but until then the FBI has an obligation to pursue the case wherever it takes them.  Being a legislator does not make you immune to this.To throw that idiotic phrase back in thier (the legislators protesting this) faces - "You should have no objection if you have nothing to hide".Ditto. Politicians cannot be immune to legal processes if there's evidence or suspicion that they're up to no good.;Quote:Original post by MachairaQuote:Original post by Anon MikeI really don't understand why people would be upset over this.  It was not "The FBI showing up at will".  They had a warrant, issued by the judicial branch.  If it turns out that the motiviation for the warrant was false then buy all means hang 'em all but until then the FBI has an obligation to pursue the case wherever it takes them.  Being a legislator does not make you immune to this.To throw that idiotic phrase back in thier (the legislators protesting this) faces - "You should have no objection if you have nothing to hide".Ditto. Politicians cannot be immune to legal processes if there's evidence or suspicion that they're up to no good.Well that would mean that we'd have to reelection from scratch [smile]They all have something to hide. ;Quote:From the article:Jefferson's motion said the search violated "speech and debate" protections in the Constitution to ensure the independence of lawmakers. Quote:US Constitution, Article 1, Section 6U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 6Article 1 - The Legislative BranchSection 6 - Compensation(...)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.(...)This is why it is unconstitutional. Because this very act is forbidden in the Constitution.Yeesh.Edit: Adding relevant part of Article 1, Section 6 of the US Constitution.However, it is certainly possible that investigating Jefferson's office does not strictly fall under this section: LinkMSN