speech and debate clause?

[derelict]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
vote

Yup.  Pennsylvania just showed a bunch of it's crooked polticians how that works.  They voted themselves a midnight raise, then tried to pass it off as nothing.  The 2 top dogs lost their jobs to virtual nobodies (even though they gave the raise back) and a dozen more incumbents fell with them.  We the People have the power, it's just getting us to use it that is hard

[storch]

they should have notified weezy first, she would have seen to it that Rep. Jefferson do the right thing.

[Mighty1]

4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.

[lukster]

I don't know how he thinks he can get away with this. He hasn't played the race card. Is he expecting the public to come to his rescue?

[storch]

Originally posted by Mighty1
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.

 sig material right there.  

[Brenjen]

Originally posted by lukster
I don't know how he thinks he can get away with this. He hasn't played the race card. Is he expecting the public to come to his rescue?

 Because he's cold busted. There isn't one single thing he can do to get away with it.


 Oh on a connected note since someone brought it up, the N.S.A wiretaps are legal.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Nash

Jefferson is a bad egg, and is guilty (imho), but there exists a seperation of powers between the branches of government, written into the constitution, making this sort of thing, well, unconstitutional. If it weren't, the mere requests for documents by the legislative branch would be replaced by midnight raids. And visa versa.

Dude... Canadians are not allowed to comment about the U.S. Constitution. It's a rule. Look it up.

[Gunslinger]

While Nash "tries" to drag this into yet another repub/dem debate, I could care less about the politics involved and more about the constitutionality of it all.  If it was a legal search warrent issued by a federal judge I don't see how it could be considered a bad "play" by congress itself.

[lukster]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
While Nash "tries" to drag this into yet another repub/dem debate, I could care less about the politics involved and more about the constitutionality of it all.  If it was a legal search warrent issued by a federal judge I don't see how it could be considered a bad "play" by congress itself.

I really don't know what to think. Are members of congress exempt from criminal prosecution?

[Brenjen]

Of course not. Only foriegn diplomats have any degree of immunity from prosecution & even it can be revoked if & when our federal govt. chooses; say for rape or murder, you know, capital crimes...most of the time they are only deported. Every citizen of the United States except the president is supposed to be legally liable for their actions in front of a civil court. The president is the only one who gets special treatment & even he is not above the law; impeachment - then prosecution once he's no longer president, but the next president just gives them clemency (remember Ford & Nixon).

 Here's my beef: The Supreme court justices have a sweet deal going & I'm sure if you dug into their closets you'd find all sorts of skeletons....possibly even literally skeletons in their closets. I.M.H.O. the supreme court system we have is flawed because of the lifetime appointments & god-like power.