Barney Frank On Concern About the Separation of Powers
Barney Frank, in a speech to the House, makes a principled stand on the issue of separation of powers. In the process, he also frames the issue in a way no high-profile Democrat has done:
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I disagree with the bipartisan House leadership criticism of the FBI's search of a Member's office. I know nothing specifically about the case, except that the uncontroverted public evidence did seem to justify the issuance of a warrant.I question why Rep. Jefferson is the one Congressman upon whom the FBI (in its entire history) has paid a personal visit. Can it be that a corrupt Louisiana politician is so rare a species that we have endured the entire 200 years of our Constitutional history never having seen one...until this week? What is it about Jefferson that is so remarkable?What we now have is a Congressional leadership, the Republican part of which has said it is okay for law enforcement to engage in warrantless searches of the average citizen, now objecting when a search, pursuant to a validly issued warrant, is conducted of a Member of Congress.
I understand that the speech and debate clause is in the Constitution. It is there because Queen Elizabeth I and King James I were disrespectful of Parliament. It ought to be, in my judgment, construed narrowly. It should not be in any way interpreted as meaning that we as Members of Congress have legal protections superior to those of the average citizen.
So I think it was a grave error to have criticized the FBI. I think what they did, they ought to be able to do in every case where they can get a warrant from a judge. I think, in particular, for the leadership of this House, which has stood idly by while this administration has ignored the rights of citizens, to then say we have special rights as Members of Congress is wholly inappropriate.
(HT to Armando)
And your question, of course, is why the CBC is in an uproar. It's a good question. Just by raising it, the spectre of racism and partisanship are in play.
I'd just like to see the thing go away, and WJ for 2 to 5.
It won't, precisely because your question, and it's easy answers, are in play. This makes it juicy enough to get equal time on the front pages with Libby, Abraoff and his clique and Wilkes' Watergate brothel.
Which, of course, muddies the waters. And just plain sucks.
One thing to watch is how skillfully Pelosi handles the uproar from the CBC.
For starters, has anyone heard from Charley Rangel? I like him a lot and would be curious to hear his take on this.
He stands to gain a committee chairmanship if the Dems take the House. So I'd expect him to weigh the issues in a thoughtful way while not sacrificing the political advantage.
I’m persuaded by the argument that congress should be secure from executive branch intimidation and that searches of congressional offices, even with a warrant, should be handled gingerly and only as a last resort. Of course the Congress, and particularly Republicans, with their massive corruption of government have no one but themselves to blame.
What’s particularly strange is how Justice has gone about doing its job, even aside from the ridiculous irony of targeting only a Democrat for this unprecedented and seemingly unnecessary action:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/26/AR2006052601016.html
Has any administration in US history been so successful at destroying its own cabinet?
Cabinet?
What Cabinet?
Before I forget, perhaps the most intriguing part of this story is the part where David Addington, Cheney's CoS, was apparently against the raid.
And presumably, so was Cheney?
What's up with that?
"What's up with that?"
Cheney's finally found someone he's decided it won't be helpful to turn into an enemy? Go figure.
Who would that be? Denny Hastert?
Am I missing something here?
And another thing: The DoJ leaked info on Hastert being under investigation and they also leaked info about Gonzalez threatening to quit.
Who's behind this and what do they want?
We definitely got ourselves a couple of Deep Throat wannabees. One or two at Justice or the FBI (or both) and a couple at CIA.
The Gonzales "leak" was self serving. The Hastert thing, on the other hand.....?
Career people are appalled at what they are experiencing (what was urban myth during Clinton, is unspoken truth under King George).