Full Version: Separation of Powers
For the first time in history, FBI agents used a warrant to search the offices of Representative William Jefferson of Louisiana. The reasoning is reported as having been tips that bribes were accepted to set up corporate deals in Africa. The Congress seems somewhat divided on this topic and the legality of it all.
Story
Questions for Debate:
1.) Is this probe a violation of the Separation of Powers? Why or why not?
2.) Is this search in any way a threat to the system of checks and balances?
3.) Are you in favor of searches of this nature or against?
4.) Has Article One, Section Six of the Constitution been violated?
Story
QUOTE(Article One @ Section Six of the Constitution)
They (Congressmen and women) 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.
Questions for Debate:
1.) Is this probe a violation of the Separation of Powers? Why or why not?
2.) Is this search in any way a threat to the system of checks and balances?
3.) Are you in favor of searches of this nature or against?
4.) Has Article One, Section Six of the Constitution been violated?
1.) Is this probe a violation of the Separation of Powers? Why or why not?
No. From everything I have heard, the search was conducted using proper warrants AND after an attempt to get the information using a subpeona was (for all intents and purposes) ignored.
2.) Is this search in any way a threat to the system of checks and balances?
In my opinion, no. I have yet to see or hear of anything that was improperly done with regards to this search. In actuality, it appears the FBI and Justice Department took great pains to insure that proper procedures were followed...far beyond what might take place if they were to search...say...the average american's home.
3.) Are you in favor of searches of this nature or against?
Kind of a loaded question, so let me answer it as carefully as possible. I am in favor of giving our authorities the power to conduct reasonable searches using proper procedures. I am NOT in favor of this becoming an "open door" for searches of our representatives becoming commonplace. Then again, perhaps now that a search has taken place and Senators and Congressmen now understand they are subject to the same rules of search as the rest of us, we might see a little less corruption? (Kinda sad to think that this is something to worry about though
)
4.) Has Article One, Section Six of the Constitution been violated?
Seeing as how this search did not include any "arrest", then I would say no. Even if the congressman had been arrested though, it seems the alleged conduct being investigated would probably rise to the level of "felony" if charges were brought forward. So again, I would have to say no.
No. From everything I have heard, the search was conducted using proper warrants AND after an attempt to get the information using a subpeona was (for all intents and purposes) ignored.
2.) Is this search in any way a threat to the system of checks and balances?
In my opinion, no. I have yet to see or hear of anything that was improperly done with regards to this search. In actuality, it appears the FBI and Justice Department took great pains to insure that proper procedures were followed...far beyond what might take place if they were to search...say...the average american's home.
3.) Are you in favor of searches of this nature or against?
Kind of a loaded question, so let me answer it as carefully as possible. I am in favor of giving our authorities the power to conduct reasonable searches using proper procedures. I am NOT in favor of this becoming an "open door" for searches of our representatives becoming commonplace. Then again, perhaps now that a search has taken place and Senators and Congressmen now understand they are subject to the same rules of search as the rest of us, we might see a little less corruption? (Kinda sad to think that this is something to worry about though
)4.) Has Article One, Section Six of the Constitution been violated?
Seeing as how this search did not include any "arrest", then I would say no. Even if the congressman had been arrested though, it seems the alleged conduct being investigated would probably rise to the level of "felony" if charges were brought forward. So again, I would have to say no.
1.) Is this probe a violation of the Separation of Powers? Why or why not?
How could it be. The separation of powers doesn't give anyone a free pass. The law is the law.
2.) Is this search in any way a threat to the system of checks and balances?
I don't think so. Since it took the other two branches to get the warrant and perform the search it seems like it was okay.
3.) Are you in favor of searches of this nature or against?
Let's define what a search of this nature is first:
1. FBI has information that a crime may have been committed.
2. FBI follows correct procedures to complete a search by obtaining a warrant.
3. FBI searches.
Seems fine to me.
4.) Has Article One, Section Six of the Constitution been violated?
As Ringwraith mentioned, no arrest was made so how could it have been?
How could it be. The separation of powers doesn't give anyone a free pass. The law is the law.
2.) Is this search in any way a threat to the system of checks and balances?
I don't think so. Since it took the other two branches to get the warrant and perform the search it seems like it was okay.
3.) Are you in favor of searches of this nature or against?
Let's define what a search of this nature is first:
1. FBI has information that a crime may have been committed.
2. FBI follows correct procedures to complete a search by obtaining a warrant.
3. FBI searches.
Seems fine to me.
4.) Has Article One, Section Six of the Constitution been violated?
As Ringwraith mentioned, no arrest was made so how could it have been?
2.) Is this search in any way a threat to the system of checks and balances?
Yes it does. This particular one I do not think was a problem, because of the quality and preponderance of evidence, but I believe it brings up a potential problem. I believe that only the Supreme court should rule on issues of allowing the executive branch the power to do a search of the legislative.
QUOTE(inventor @ Jul 18 2006, 01:09 AM) 
2.) Is this search in any way a threat to the system of checks and balances?
Yes it does. This particular one I do not think was a problem, because of the quality and preponderance of evidence, but I believe it brings up a potential problem. I believe that only the Supreme court should rule on issues of allowing the executive branch the power to do a search of the legislative.
The Supreme Court is a reactive branch of the government, not a proactive one. The Supreme Court can only make a ruling if two parties approach them with a constitutional challenge. That hasn't happened.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.