[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Dead Constitution See other Dead Constitution Articles Title: History of ‘Speech or Debate’ Clause on Capitol Hill History of ‘Speech or Debate’ Clause on Capitol Hill By Daniel J. Parks, CQ Staff The “speech or debate” clause found in Article 1. Section 6 of the Constitution was intended to protect members of Congress from politically motivated criminal and civil harassment while performing legitimate functions of their office. It has proved difficult at times for both prosecutors and defense attorneys to navigate in criminal cases involving of members of Congress. In 1972, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Brewster that the speech or debate clause protects members of Congress from prosecution for their legislative actions per se, but not from prosecution for crimes that might be related to their legislative roles — such as taking a bribe to cast a certain vote. The “shield” of legislative immunity “does not extend beyond what is necessary to preserve the integrity of the legislative process,” the court ruled. Below are some cases in which the clause has been invoked: Rep. Joseph M. McDade (1963-99) McDade was charged May 5, 1992, with taking more than $100,000 worth of illegal gratuities, bribes and extorted favors from defense firms. McDade, who was the Appropriations Committee’s top Republican, and House lawyers argued that his status as a committee leader so permeated the indictment that it violated the speech or debate clause. But U.S. District Judge Robert S. Gawthrop III refused to throw out the corruption indictment, saying such an interpretation would create “the impression that members of Congress are immune from prosecution merely because they are members of Congress.” McDade appealed, but a three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia also refused to throw out the indictment. However, McDade was eventually acquitted. Oliver L. North In the the Iran-Contra criminal trial, the former White House aide subpoenaed records from the House Select Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Armed Services committees, as well as members of Congress and certain unidentified House staff members. North justified his broad request for congressional documents and testimony on the grounds that they would prove information he allegedly concealed from Congress already was known by members of the House committees through other sources. The House of Representatives’ general counsel successfully resisted the effort, calling it an invitation to “wholesale rummaging” through privileged documents collected by the various committees during their investigation of the Iran-Contra affair. As part of his 1989 ruling rejecting North’s request, U.S. District Judge Gerhard A. Gesell said he would not countenance any attempt by North to probe the “political motivation” behind Congress’ Iran-Contra investigations. Rep. Joshua Eilberg, D-Pa. (1967-79) In 1978, Eilberg was under investigation for allegedly accepting money to influence his congressional activities. Federal prosecutors sought telephone records from Eilberg’s office. The House legal counsel’s office successfully fought the government, arguing that Eilberg’s records were privileged under the speech or debate clause. When Eilberg pleaded guilty to reduced charges in 1979, the government sought in a civil action to get the phone records, but the House legal counsel’s office challenged that move and won again. Rep. Henry Helstoski, D-N.J. (1965-77) Helstoski was indicted in 1976 on charges of accepting money in return for introducing private bills allowing certain aliens to remain in the United States. The Supreme Court ruled in 1979 that the speech and debate clause prohibited federal prosecutors from using any evidence of past legislative actions in prosecuting Helstoski. The charges against Helstoski subsequently were dismissed.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 1.
#1. To: aristeides (#0)
This is all getting hard to follow, but these events seem to support my thesis that one sign of an Empire type Authoritarian power structure is that conflicting, confusing events happen that people are hard pressed to follow and judge accurately. They throw up their hands in exasperation and move to the safety of 24, CSI and American Idol. Government organs and officials move in confusing, contradictory manner, with ostensible enemies and allies shifting alliances as event dictate, each asserting authority from unimpeachable sources like the Constitution or the Law. Byzantium, the Chancellery, the Kremlin, even the Chinese Politburo seem transparent compared to DC.
#2. To: swarthyguy (#1)
Yep. Excellent observation.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||