I don't suppose you or someone else could explain to the slow witted** how this episode "eviserates" the argument that FISA is constitutional.

** me

h --

Congress is arguing that the executive branch can't police them.

At the same time many of them are also trying to argue that they can restrict executive power via statute.

Hastert just stepped on his d*ck. Big Time. Goodbye House in November. Power corrupts. Throw the Hasterts out.

Ghostcat, I have been hearing that a lot. Funny, while the scandal keeps changing, the solution doesn't. You may be very unhappy come November if you keep crying wolf like this. Also, power doesn't corrupt, those who are corrupt seek power. Big difference.

Ghostcat: I don't see that at all. As OJ says, this keeps William Jefferson (D. La.) in the news. The fact that the constitutional argument is ridiculous is bothersome, but acceptable.

The criminals are trying to close rank.

I am a right-of-center Independent, as is my wife. Over the 43 years of our relationship, I have found her to be uncannily representative of the American body politic. And she is truly p*ssed about this.

Power corrupts, and we humans are corruptible. The only variables in that equation are the magnitude of the temptation, on the one hand, and the resistance to temptation, on the other.

Hastert and Boehner have essentially conceded the corruption issue back to the Dems, by giving them air cover. Pelosi (PELOSI!) is the only House leader calling for punitive action against Jefferson.

Disgusting.

Well, that's it. I'm not going to vote for Dennis Hastert. Fortunately for him, I don't live in his district.

"that the constitutional argument is ridiculous"

Why is it ridiculous? Surely agents of the executive don't have the right to rummage thru legislative records.

Ghostcat

He isn't even indicted yet. Why would the speaker of the House be calling for punitive action?

Constitutional officers defending the Constitution is never a bad thing.

h-man: Surely the legislature doesn't have the right to rummage through executive records?

Oops, they do it every working day, not once in 220 years.

I'm sure the executive will trade its right to use the FBI to search offices in return for Congess giving up its right to compel records (and testimony) thru subpoena.

Pelosi wants him to step down because he confuses the issue, which is why the GOP wants him to stay.

bob
Speaker Hastert is complaining about Congressional papers under the speech and debate clause. Its purpose is to assure the Congress a wide and unfettered latitude of freedom of speech in the deliberative process surrounding enacting legislation, and to shield that process from potential intimidation from the Executive and Judicial Branches.

And No Bob I don't think congress has the right to rummage thru the west wing to read the Presidents private papers. However if the law is to the effect that records residing thruout the rest of the executive branch are public and/or should be available to Congress, then the president can not violate that right. You agree no?

Nothing ridiculous about the constitutional issue. (although, the argument might not prevail)

Under real Separation it couldn't prevail because it's not judiciable, by definition.

ABC News sez Hastert himself is in the FBI's cross-hairs.

But it has been adjudicated.

Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606 (1972); Powell v. McCormick, 395 U.S. 486 (1969).

United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501, 525 (1972), and "precludes any showing of how [a member of Congress], acted, voted, or decided."

The filtering process here was probably (i'm guessing) to see how Jefferson voted and or spoke in closed hearings. The records sought had already been secured when the original subpoenas had been issued.

Ghostcat, before this it was the port deal, and immigration, and being soft on the war on terror, and Katrina. I don't think it's the issue, I think your're just unhappy with the give and take of the political process. It would explain why you are an Independent.....

ghostcat

He received campaign contributions from Abramnoff (sp). So shoot him.

Robert -

Wrong. I love the American political process. It limits power and power's handmaiden corruption very nicely. And it will in this case.

Ghostcat, if you loved the political process, you would be a member of a political party.

DOJ denies Hastert is under investigation. Hope that holds.

Robert -

I am with W on all the issues you mentioned above. I campaigned for the man, even though I'm an Independent. But I'm a Marxist (of the Groucho variety) when it comes to clubs of any kind.

So you love baseball but don't have a team you favor? Ok.....

h-man: Really, the constitutional argument is ridiculous. The cases you cite stand for the proposition that the constitutional argument is ridiculous. Moreover, this isn't just the executive branch. The FBI went and got a search warrant. In other issues currently in the news we are instructed is the ne plus ultra of good constitutional practice.

Also, all the executive is doing is enforcing the laws that congress made. In other issues currently in the news, we are instructed that the president's highest duty is to see that the laws are faithfully executed.

If congress wants to take bribes, it is free to make bribe taking legal. In other issues currently in the news, we are instructed that people who violate the least little law -- even those that, unlike bribery, are not felonies -- are scum without rights who should be summarily dragged from their homes and booted out of the country.

Finally, taking bribes is not the legitimate business of congress and William Jefferson (D. La.) is not acting in furtherence of his congressional duties if he did take a bribe.

The Fourth Amendment is satisfied (warrant) and the speech and debate clause isn't even relevent. Is there inherent power in the congress to keep the police at bay? I believe that the president, under the constitution the sole embodiment of the executive power and charged with the defence of the nation, does have scope to act unchecked to by congress or the judiciary in furtherence of his official duties, subject only to impeachment. That does not imply that William Jefferson (D. La.) has any scope to take bribes unfettered by interference from the FBI.

Ghost: Pelosi asked William Jefferson (D. La.) to resign from Ways and Means, and he refused.

David -

Jefferson will soon have a now-I-see-the-light moment ... a la Cynthia McKinney.

Robert -

My herd/pack instincts have been overridden by life experiences. There's a reason it's not ghostcow or ghostdog.

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.

When Byrd defended the judicial filibuster, he quoted Horace, the Village Voice, the instruction booklet on how to set the clock on your VCR...everything but the Constitution. When making a Constitutional argument, always quote the Constitution.

This clause was meant to stop political prosecutions and political fishing expeditions, not create enforcement-free crime zones for Congress. An example of such a politically-inspired search would be when Conyers demanded Cheney's Energy Task Force records.

It's bad enough that Republicans look like they're siding with the crook, but it's worse that they apparently haven't read the Constitution they swore to defend.

Search away.