Not Above The Law
Against my better judgment I'm going to weigh in on the search of Congressman Jefferson's House office. Tough luck, ladrone. The final paragraph in a Washington Post story (registration required) is the one that got me going. We'll get to that in a bit, but let me set up the argument first. There have been certain conventions of the conduct of government, that have been abided by for centuries, which enables governments to govern.
For instance in America, you just can't sue the government; you have to ask permission. Following is the closest thing I can find addressing this at this moment, but it explains the point. It's from the Texas Legislative Council Drafting Manual, not from the US Code.
SEC. 5.04. CONCURRENT RESOLUTIONS GRANTING PERMISSION TO SUE STATE. (a) Introduction. For centuries the doctrine of sovereign immunity, common to some degree among all recorded systems of law, shielded government from accountability for torts it committed against private individuals or entities. Courts and statutes have created doctrinal exceptions through which recovery against the government is possible, but the state and, to a lesser extent, its subdivisions are still immune from liability in many circumstances. The legislature by statute may waive immunity from liability and by statute or resolution waive immunity from suit in cases in which the state is alleged to be liable. It is with immunity from suit that this section is concerned.See note below*
This refers to civil actions (torts), not criminal cases, and is generally applied to the whole government, no matter what incarnation. It also states that the government through various legal vehicles can waive this 'immunity.' (The above linked document addresses the legal form as to how to 'sue' the State of Texas.) This concept of immunity is very likely the impetus behind Section Six of the United States Constitution, which deals specifically with the US legislature, and has recently been bandied about in the news.
Section 6 – Compensation …They (The Senators and Representatives) 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…
Notice the exceptions. (Also one may understand why Congressman Kenedy told the police he was on his way to a "vote" after crashing his car.) We are also all familiar with Impeachment. This is where the government has the responsibility to 'clean house.' From Section 3:
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Notice again the caveat that "…the Party…shall be liable…according to Law" Except in notable circumstances, the law protects the elected Government Official from hindrance in carrying out his duties. But it doesn't insulate him from prosecution for criminal activity. At best it delays the process, and it makes sure the case is not frivolous (the main, and winning argument it seems, against removing President Clinton from office; he was however, prosecuted and convicted, for lying to a Grand Jury, and did lose his law license).
Governments do big things. Big things can hurt little people, which is the brilliance of the American experiment: The government being ultimately accountable to the little people through the ballot box. To be sure, there are other legal remedies for bad government, including the right to criticize a sitting government (that free speech thing, which I'm making use of at this very moment). You can't hogtie a government with small things or it won't be able to function.
You can never please all of the people. To some, simply the act of registering as a Republican implies that you are a fascist. To others being a liberal amounts to checking your common sense at the door. These types of partisans would, if they could, stop an elected government of the opposing party from functioning. Thus the above 'protections.'
But if there exists a thing, there will be someone perfectly willing to abuse it. This is what I believe is happening with Congressman Jefferson. I don't believe he is behind it, I watched one of his news conferences. He was like a deer in the headlights and smartly said he would defer to the advice of his lawyer. Apparently, co-counsel includes the Republican leadership.
The ridiculousness of saying that the search of Jefferson's office was unconstitutional comes in the aforementioned 'last paragraph' from the Washington Post. It's almost like they're in a vacuum. You can almost smell the fear coming off the unidentified 'administration official.'
"If you tell the House to stick it where the sun don't shine, you're talking about a fundamentally corrosive relationship between two branches of government," the senior administration official said. "They could zero out funding; they could say, 'Okay, you can do subpoenas, so can we.' "
Considering that the Judicial Branch issued the warrant we have a third branch of government involved, not just two. Is there no corrosion there? This is called 'checks and balances.' The "…so can we" (issue subpoenas) line calls to lie that one branch of government cannot investigate another. It happens all the time.
This is not about serving the people, which is why tradition and law have protected certain government actions, it's about protecting turf, and it comes from fear. I don't want any of these bums representing me in any branch of government, and I consider myself a partisan. Throw them all out and let the chips fall where they will.
*Here are two further links discussing sovereign immunity: Wikipedia and 'Lectric Law Library.
