There are so many things in this Carl Hulse piece worth discussing, it is difficult to figure out where to start. I guess the beginning will have to do:
After years of quietly acceding to the Bush administration’s assertions of executive power, the Republican-led Congress hit a limit this weekend.
Resentment boiled among senior Republicans for a second day on Tuesday after a team of warrant-bearing agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation turned up at a closed House office building on Saturday evening, demanded entry to the office of a lawmaker and spent the night going through his files.
The episode prompted cries of constitutional foul from Republicans — even though the lawmaker in question, Representative William J. Jefferson of Louisiana, is a Democrat whose involvement in a bribery case has made him an obvious partisan political target.
First, let me get this out of the way. Heh.
Ok. Moving on. I am hard-pressed to counter arguments that the only reason many in the GOP are up in arms about this is that they fear their offices might be raided in the future. They probably should be. First, a lot of them are corrupt as hell. Second, this shortsighted group of sewer trout is finally beginning to recognize they will not be in the majority forever. Many of us who have been pointing this out for years- I can’t tell you how many times I have tried to explain to people that ending the filibuster via the nuclear option would end the filibuster forever. And so on and so on. This group, while letting this administration run basically unchecked, has failed to realize (until now, perhaps), that any future Democratic administration, should they be as shameless and brazen as the current Bush administration, will be well within their rights and precedent to do many of the same things- all to undo the ‘panacea’ that has been created over the past 6 years.
Having said all that, I have no problem with a group of feds with a warrant raiding a congressman’s office. Next piece:
Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House majority leader, predicted that the separation-of-powers conflict would go to the Supreme Court. “I have to believe at the end of the day it is going to end up across the street,” Mr. Boehner told reporters gathered in his conference room, which looks out on the Capitol plaza and the court building.
BWAHAHAHA. Considering the only common theme among Bush’s three nominations to the Supreme Court has been a complete and total deference to executive authority, and in Harriet’s case, a total deference to Bush, the individual, I am willing to bet this is a fight the Bush administration does not mind taking to the Supremes.
Lawmakers and outside analysts said that while the execution of a warrant on a Congressional office might be surprising — this appears to be the first time it has happened — it fit the Bush administration’s pattern of asserting broad executive authority, sometimes at the expense of the legislative and judicial branches.
Pursuing a course advocated by Vice President Dick Cheney, the administration has sought to establish primacy on domestic and foreign policy, not infrequently keeping much of Congress out of the loop unless forced to consult.
“It is consistent with a unilateral approach to the use of authority in Washington, D.C.,” Philip J. Cooper, a professor at Portland State University who has studied the administration’s approach to executive power, said of the search.
Trust us. We are here from the government to help you and protect you.
rilkefan
I for one would have been more comfortable if they had had a subpoena. Esp. as they had him dead to rights without this action.
Ancient Purple
Constitution = Helpful hints.
Law = More helpful hints.
The above is the mantra of this administration and the GOP sat for five years and did nothing to interrupt their chant.
God bless karma.
Steve
Wow, the idea that when there’s a dispute between Congress and the Executive Branch about what the law requires, the courts should make the decision? What a positively radical notion.
While the Supreme Court is considering this case, we have a few other legal controversies they might want to look at. The wingnuts are convinced that FISA is unconstitutional; let’s put it to the test!
Pooh
Is it too cynical to say that
Shorter GOP Congressman: “If you don’t have anything to hide…and we do!”
Brian
The relevant Constitutional language applies here:
Thus, their offices are fair game for search. If Hastert believes that Congressmen have some blanket immunity, like another country’s consul, then they are very mistaken. If Hastert’s correct, then all sorts of illegal shenanigans can occur right out in the open and with impunity. It’s bullshit, they know it, and the Supreme Court would easily put them in their place if they don’t know it.
They’re all crooks and sellouts.
Darrell
Yes, because if anyone claims the President’s authority to appoint Federal appellate court judges is “disputed”, the Supreme court should be give the power to strip that authority away from the Executive branch, right?.. Ever hear the term ‘co-equal’ branch of government?
Vladi G
Would it? I mean, if they can break the rules to end the filibuster, what’s to stop them from breaking the rules to put it back in? Hypothetically, if they lose the majority, there’s a two month window before the new Congress would take over.
capelza
I wonder what kind of wailing would we hear from the executive branch if the FBI showed at the white house bearing warrants. Just curious.
Punchy
The hypocrisy and irony are off-the-charts thick. First, the notion that Congress will watch as the 4th Amendment is eviscerated, the 1st Amendment about freedom of the press is chiseled away, and surely the ignoring of the 8th amendment with Jose Padilla, but will now fight a DEMOCRAT breaking the law is simply astounding. Basically, Amendments, and even laws (750 of ’em) broken by Bush are A-OK, but how dare the FBI raid an office of a criminal?
Secondly, how BAD does the Republican establishment look when, instead of laughing at Jefferson, they’re SUPPORTING him? I’m guessing that much of the Republican corruptness is laid out in papers, discs, emails in their offices. How else does one explain their support of his plight?
Perry Como
They would claim national security and deny the appropriate clearance.
p.lukasiak
I am hard-pressed to counter arguments that the only reason many in the GOP are up in arms about this is that they fear their offices might be raided in the future.
I beg to disagree.
IMHO, congressional republicans are pissed off (and rightfully so) because they weren’t consulted first. There was more than sufficient evidence available against Jefferson that both Dems and GOP leadership would have authorized such a search, given the massive amount of evidence of corruption available on Jefferson (including failure to fully respond to a supoena) — and an ad hoc arrangement (leading to arrangements for more formal procedures when these kinds of searches need to be carried out) could have been gotten.
Its not just about the prospect of a Democratic administration deciding that its open season on GOP congrescritters, it really is about the separation of powers.
In other words I think you are being far too cynical here — I do think that GOP leaders feel emboldened to protest now that Bush’s polling numbers are in the tank, but congresscritters are nothing if not vainglorious, and this was a slap in the face.
Pooh
Big D,
You couldn’t even come up with three options on your own, that’s just sad.
Darrell, in case my saracasm made my point unclear, it’s…rich for the biggest champion of the Unfallible Executive on this blog to start whining about ‘equality’ between government branches.
Steve
Wow, when the Supreme Court tries to strip away an expressly granted constitutional power from the Executive, you might have a point. Of course, on Planet Darrell, warrantless wiretapping is an expressly granted power.
tBone
Welcome to the last 6 years, Brian.
Darrell
Strawman, strawman! Get yer red hot strawman right here!
John Cole
That would be a first- me being TOO cynical.
srv
Ever heard that “some are more equal than others”?
srv
And even if it is, you can just sign an finding and ignore it.
Perry Como
It is funny to see the Congresscritters getting upset now that the Bush administration has violated their rules and procedures. The DoJ has a document outlining exactly what law enforcement should do when they want a Congresscritter’s papers from its office. They need to go the House and request them. The House will then handle the request. Instead the DoJ got a warrant and dispatched the FBI to riffle trhough legislative papers.
psst, Congress. You are nothing more than an inconvenience to this administration. That pesky separation of powers thingee only applies to the Executive.
Steve
Well, gee Darrell, if we agree that warrantless wiretapping isn’t an expressly granted power, then what exactly is your objection to letting the courts rule on whether FISA unconstitutionally restricts the power of the Executive? It seems odd to me that people who are so confident in their legal position would resist a judicial determination of that position so strongly.
srv
And even if it isn’t…
ppGaz
Darrell the Decider has spoken on this issue.
Everybody else, shut up. Darrell is the designated watchdog here, monitoring the use of government power and deciding what’s okay and what isn’t.
The fact that Darrell’s “points” look exactly like whatever horsehit came out of the GOP talking point machine, or righty talk radio, is a coincidence. Darrell is an independent thinker and has the best interest of all citizens at heart at all times.
Darrell’s rhetoric, which appears to scorn and ridicule everyone who might, even in the slightest, disagree with him, is not to be taken seriously. He is just kidding, he does not really think that Americans concerned about the use and distribution of government power are stupid scum. He just says that to win you over.
John S.
Is that like tough love?
Darrell
There is no clause in FISA relating to the President’s authority to monitor suspected foreign terrorists who reside outside the US. I have no problem though, in getting a judicial clarification on that issue. What I do have a problem with is your suggestion above that the courts have authority to solve any and all disputes between Congress and the Executive branch
ppGaz
That’s big of you Darrell, getting the opinion of a court, and all. Magnanimous on your part, really. We know that you don’t HAVE to do that.
And you are right to “have a problem” with any suggestion that you don’t approve of. Control of government power is not something you want to leave to citizens.
Steve
Okay, I will stipulate that when there’s a dispute between Congress and the Executive that is clearly resolved by the text of the Constitution, there’s no need to get the courts involved. That has nothing to do with anything under discussion here, but I appreciate you picking the nit.
Slide
Anyone find it slightly interesting that with all the numerous Republican scandals that we are aware of that the only Congressman’s office to be searched was a Democrat’s?
More than a few Republicans sphincter’s must have tightened seeing that the FBI can just waltz into their Congressional office and search around. How many ongoing investigations are their involving Republican congressman and/or their staff?
But I’m a little confused here about the Republican’s new found love of privacy and constitutional rights. Don’t they know we are at war. Everything has changed since 911. Or as Senator Roberts elequently said,
Right up there with FDR’s:
Or Ben Franklin:
If they have nothing to hide… yada yada yada….
ahhhh… just gotta love it don’t ya?
The Other Steve
The Jefferson case involved a sting, followed up with a raid of the home with a slew of evidence. It’s pretty clear that they are raiding his office looking for evidence to support the bribery charges.
Now if stuff leaks out of this regarding political tactics, like how the caucus is going to get an unrelated bill passed or something like that. Then that’s stepping across the boundary.
But these are bribery charges, with a slew of other supporting evidnece. They had enough to get a warrant.
I just don’t see anything wrong with this.
I am convinced the Republicans are worried that their offices will be raided next, looking for connections to Cunningham and Abramhoff, etc.
Darrell
Sure it does, as many/most on your side seem to think that the courts should be the arbiter of every ‘dispute’ involving Congress and the Executive Branch, when in fact the President is claiming in the case of FISA, that he is acting on Article II authority granted to him in the constitution. No nit picking required.. it’s the very crux of the disagreement
Slide
no but there is a clause relating to the President’s authority to monitor the phone conversations of individuals within the USA without a warrant. He has none.
Pooh
Steve, leave it alone. Between the two of us, we’ve gone point-by-point through this with him upwards of a dozen times. If he was open to getting it, he would have gotten it.
Steve
Either the authority is expressly granted by Article II, an argument you already called a “red-hot strawman,” or else the claim that the authority is implicitly conferred by Article II needs to be resolved by the courts one way or the other.
What is the third option? Any time the President says, “Well, I think that authority is implicitly granted to me, even though the Constitution doesn’t expressly say so,” then the courts are powerless to say whether he’s right or wrong? You can’t possibly be making that argument.
Perry Como
That’s why the FBI doesn’t normally go raiding a Congresscritter’s office. They have admitted to going through legislative documents. They even set up a system so prosecutors wouldn’t see the legislative documents. The problem is the DoJ is ignoring their own rules for handling this type of situation.
Look at it this way. When Congress subpoenas the White House for documents, they don’t get to go through all the documents in the Chief of Staff’s office and decide which ones relate to the investigation. Instead, the White House reviews the documents and provides them to Congress.
The same should have happened here. The House should have been informed that the FBI was looking for specific documents related to a criminal investigation of Jefferson. Then the House would have had people go through Jefferson’s office and provided that material to the FBI.
There’s a reason why this isn’t a regular occurrence.
Pooh
Ugh… sucked back in…
Spot the operative word here, kids.
Right – CLAIMING. On what basis is he making this claim? Is it factually or legally supported? Factually, we don’t so much know, legally we pretty much know the framework, we just need the facts. Or you could just believe that an Executive Proclamation = litereal truth in every case. There is no evidence to contradict that theory. When words have no fixed meaning they can mean whatever you want them to mean, therefore, when you say e.g. Mission Accomplished, the fact that what was being touted doesn’t conform to what the majority of people would understand either “Mission” or “Accomplishment” to mean is immaterial – the meaning was the intended meaning, not the dictionairy meaning. Who are we to argue, right? Rinse and repeat as to “we do not torture” or “we get warrants” or even “heckuva job”. It’s my fault of course, in these trying times, my faith is weak. I am not worthy, which is why I need the Darrells if the intrawebs (may or may not include actual Darrells) to show me the way.
Pooh
Bad bet, Steve.
ppGaz
Pooh, leaving Darrell to die intellectually like that … isn’t that like the climbers on Everest who walk by people dying at high altitude and just leave them there? (See: MSN today for a story about the Everest “death zone.”)
Is there nothing in your heart that pushes you to get Darrell some intellectual oxygen, to drag him to safety?
They convened Congress for Terri Schiavo. Surely there is something we can do for Darrell?
Darrell
The strawman argument was made by you above:
you raise a more interesting question here
If the President makes a ‘reasonable’ interpretation of his constitutional authority, should the courts be empowered to make the final decision? I’m not sure if it’s as obvious an answer as you say
Steve
Who gets to decide if it’s reasonable or unreasonable?
Perry Como
The Decider. Duh.
Pooh
Yes, yes it is. Otherwise, as long as the Executive ‘reasonably’ interprets (that klaxon you hear is the Begged Question Alert) then the President is the de facto final interpreter of the scope of his own power. Surely I don’t have to explain why that is unwise, do I?
Kimmitt
I do, for one, and here’s why:
Congress is supposed, at least, to have the capacity to check the Executive. However, the modern Executive is ridiculously powerful and perfectly capable of bullying and intimidating individual members of Congress until oversight functions become essentially dead letters. The only way to prevent this is for individual Congressmen and women to be very much inviolate, protected by strong traditions of autonomy which even an open-and-shut bribery case like this one should not be able to affect.
That said, the idea that these morons are standing up for Congressional oversight prerogatives is absurd. They were just counting on their immunity to facilitate their larceny.
D. Mason
It’s probably safe to assume that even if you did explain it, no matter how thouroughly, some people would still not “get it”.
Darrell
I don’t believe it is in all cases, because the converse argument would be that the Supreme court would be empowered to strip Executive Branch authority, with power to declare reasonable interpretations of the constitution to be ‘unreasonable’ on flimsy grounds. Article II is vague on a lot of issues. Why should the Judicial branch power necessarily trump that of Executive branch?
Who gets to decide? I think you’re being dishonest in trying to make these answers appear to be more straightforward than they are in reality.
Al Maviva
Duh. Jefferson said he’d vote a certain way and take various steps to make things happen for the guy bribing him. In a dollars-for-votes case where there is a pretty clear, videotaped quid pro quo agreement, legislative papers – commmittee notes and the like – might well be what the law talking guys sometimes refer to as evidence. Time will tell. My only real problem with the whole thing is that there aren’t enough Republicans getting frog marched right now.
Darrell
Good post.. I hope you’re not right about Congress feeling too intimidated to aggressively oversea programs which need overseeing. I haven’t seen evidence of that happening. I mean, I don’t see members of Congress who are so emboldened to have called Bush a ‘Chickenhawk’ in congress.. to then turn around and back down on matters of oversight out of intimidation.
From what I’ve seen, the members of the intelligence committees, the ones most knowledgeable on these programs, tend to stay quiet when allegations are thrown about that those programs have been abused. It’s reasonable to assume they’re not screaming because they know the value in those programs, and they have a fair degree of confidence that the programs are not being abused.
Steve
I do think there’s a certain point at which documents of that type become protected by the Speech and Debate Clause, at least from my limited understanding of the precedents. But I think the DOJ knows what line not to cross in that regard and the courts can sort it out in any event. What I’m not on board with is this idea that there’s some kind of protective bubble around the congressman’s entire office.
DougJ
I’m sure that the Republicans in Congress are complaining because they are afraid their offices will be raided too, but that doesn’t mean they’re wrong. To me, discrediting their arguments in this way is too much like “if you have nothing to hide, then what are you afraid of.”
I’m keeping an open mind on this one.
farmgirl
capelza says:
It would be the kind of wailing that strikes the eardrum with the sweetness of angel-song, I’ll tell you that much. (Please, God, let it be so.)
ppGaz
Absolutely poetic.
Please God, let it not be DougJ talking.
DecidedFenceSitter
It doesn’t. Judicial power, in the realm of ruling on the constitutionality, is the most absolute; but also the least used, due to the fact that it is not a proactive power, it is a reactive power.
It is one of the reasons why the Court can’t just reach out and rule on something, say like the War Power Act, which may or may not be consitutional, but we’ll never know till someone brings it to the bench and the court gets to rule on it; but as neither side wants to lose, it isn’t brought up, and well, for the time being the consitutionality.
The Judges get to decide because that is what they do, they judge whether something is constitutional or not. If they didn’t, then they’d be useless and pointless. Hence the purpose behind the Marbury v. Madison decision, which declared the Court to be the supreme arbiter of the Constitution in 1803.
ppGaz
Darrell’s right. When government officials look away from possible abuse of power, it’s always because they know it’s okay. It’s never because they know that their own grip on power hangs on playing the game, going along to get along, protecting the powerful, sucking up to the godfathers … all that “absolute power corrupts” stuff is just the noise of the nattering nabobs, the Loony Left, the Bush Haters, and the people who would taste French wines while terrorists raped American women and attacked our public buildings like Times Square and Wal Mart stores.
See, their silence is our signal to be silent along with them. Only through silence can we insure the protection of liberties.
When Darrell tells you that you are stupid scum lefty, it’s his patient and nurturing way of telling you to shut up and let the government run the country … it’s their job.
DougJ
I’m actually quite sympathetic to the Republicans in Congress. Sure, a lot of them, maybe as many as a third to a half, are out and out crooks. But I think most of the others mean well and want what’s best for the country. Some of the crooks probably even mean well, in a way.
It’s shameful that they’ve let their party and the government be co-opted by incompetent lunatics like Dick Cheney and Karl Rove. But I’m ready to support them (if not vote for them) when they fight back against these usurpers.
None of the above is meant to be snarky. I’m really rooting for the better angels (even the crooked better angels) of the Republican party to throw Bush overboard. It’s the only way things are going to get better.
Pooh
Some might suggest that it’s even more reasonable to assume that there silence is influenced by the fact that it would be felonious for them to speak out…
But I’m glad to know that you support is so strong from those whose conscience dictates that they blow the whistle on executive overreach. Steve, you’re the archivist ’round here – you got this one?
srv
Uh, you seem to think that the Supreme Court of the United States of America and John Yoo somehow have equal authority on Article II.
Guess again.
The Other Steve
This doesn’t appear to be intimidation.
demimondian
I think that the reason only Republicans are speaking out on this is a far more delicious irony.
The Democrats know that if they step forward to claim that this is an overstepping of executive power, then the Rovians will use that against them. (“Yeah, Bob Ney’s going down. So what? If the Democrats weren’t afraid of the same thing, …”) Unfortunately, there’s good Constitutional reason to worry about a search like this, and so the Republicans are left to say “Hey, wait! We don’t like this.”
Sadly for them, they’ve so effectively silenced the Dems in Congress that they’re going to have no bipartisan air-support here, much as they probably deserve it.
Darrell
Just to be clear, your position is that there are likely members of the intelligence committees who believe abuses are taking place, but who do nothing because any and all steps they could take to address the situation would be felonious.. Is this part of the ‘reality based’ thought process?
Pharniel
Just to be clear, your position is that there are likely members of the intelligence committees who believe abuses are taking place, but who do nothing because any and all steps they could take to address the situation would be felonious.. Is this part of the ‘reality based’ thought process?
No, it’s part of the “we’re denying your investigators security clearnce to look into possible breeches” and the FCC declining to even LOOK into potential conflict of interest and/or abuse by the NSA.
I’d call that dysfunctional and inbread with ineffective checks on power.
Pooh
Public steps.
You are the one claiming their silence proves nothing untoward is going on. However, speaking out is A) felonious and B) met with howls of outrage from…well you for one. A neat trick, If they say nothing then QED, nothing bad is happeing. If they speak up, they have a partisan agenda, therefore nothing bad is happening. No investigation necessay, nothing to see here…
ppGaz
Oh no! The Darrell-Oz character has been exposed, the curtain pulled back!
Why ….. he’s nothing! Nothing at all!
Who knew?
tzs
Darrell, what we’re saying is it looks like the President of the United States of America admits no bar to ANYTHING that he might wish to do against our civil liberties, providing it somehow can be shoe-horned into somehow being connected to the “War Against Terror.”
Considering how those Weapons of Mass Destruction that Saddamn supposedly had mutated into Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction and finally into Well, They Might Be Working On Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction In The Future, can you understand why we might have good and solid reasons to be jittery?
By the way, even under the most tyrannical Emperors of the Roman Empire, it was readily admitted under Roman Law that the authority of the Emperor derived from the consent and will of the Roman People. (Lex Julia.) They had handed over their decision-making capacity to the Emperor HOWEVER this transfer of authority could be REVOKED if the Roman populus agreed.
Those who continue to defend Bush should remember this. He is not a King with Divine Right. Nor is he even an Emperor. We are a REPUBLIC.
ppGaz
I’ll answer for Darrell, since he’s away having his head removed from his dirtpipe ….
YEAH? What’s your point, tzs? Do want to look into the navel of “liberty-schmiberty” or do you want to be safe?
How many attacks on America have there been since 911?
NONE! Duh, do you lefty scum even CARE about that? You’d rather have another 911 than see Bush get the praise he deserves for defending America. Admit it.
Pooh
John,
Apparently, you’re just cynical enough in this instance:
pardon me while I bask in the glow of the Schaden-fire…
Remus
Give it to the Ds though. They’re playing this brilliantly and letting the Repub leadership hang itself.
The really sad thing is, I suspect someone in the executive branch thought this raid would be a way to use the FBI to highlight Dem corruption, to capture a news cycle when the public hears story after story about Rep. corruption–notice they never raided Duke Cunningham’s office even he day he resigned– instead our leaders look like they’re frightened of what the FBI would find in thei offices
John S.
Wow, that’s a spot-on impression ppGaz.
What is your technique?
The Other Steve
Well it appears Nancy Pelosi has decided to yank defeat from the jaws of victory, once again… And she’s spoken out with Hastert demanding the papers back.
Sometimes I wonder if she didn’t do too much LDS in the 60’s.
Larry
The Onion on line 2.