Const Question - Concept of congress people exempt from arrest, etc...

[HardWorkingDem]

With the recent controversy over the searching of a congressman's office, it got me wondering about the origins of things like congress people being exempt from arrest while going to congress.

What is the concept behind this?

Off the top of my head, I would think it was developed to prevent crooked politicians from "arresting" congress people on bogus items to prevent them from doing the peoples' business.

Anyone out there know the condensed version of the framer's intent on this type of thing?


Thanks

[The_Warmth]

1. I've always...

thought the intention was to maintain stability among our government.

[JohnKleeb]

2. No, not exempt from arrest

Duke Cunningham was arrested while still an official member of congress I believe.

[no_hypocrisy]

3. How about the other way around: can Congress order a search warrant

on the Oval Office? Like, how did Congress get Nixon's tapes, by subpoena?

[mrcheerful]

5. Nope it took an act of congress to ok the courts sending a subpoena

[adwon]

6. Nixon was interfering in another branch's area

The claim of executive privilege ran into the province of the courts in criminal trials.

[mrcheerful]

4. Thats an old play on words trick

a congress critter can not be pulled over and delayed while going from home to office. A congressman will not get a ticket while on his way to congress, a Ticket in the legal sense is being arrested, just instead of going to jail the police have you sign a ticket stating you will show up in court on the day the ticket requires. Some smart ass public employee tied using that argument one year against his opponent but it didn't fly. My unworthy opponent was once arrested on his way to congress, it was debunked by the other person saying he got ticketed.

[johnaries]

7. Article I, Section 5.

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.

So, the Congress is more or less charged with policing itself.

If you think about it, the Executive Branch is charged with enforcing the Laws. Which means the FBI, etc. are under the Executive Branch. A Congressman's office is bound to contain information that a President might want access to for political reasons. How easy would it be, then, for a President to create false charges in order to search a Congressman's office and thus gain access to sensitive political information that the President can then use to his political advantage?

[kentuck]

8. Barney Frank may have said it best ?

excerpted from www.talkingpointsmemo.com

<snip>
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.

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.

[Tarc]

9. In the Founding Fathers' days...

a common tactic in civil suits was to arrest the accused before trial, thus the protections given to members of Congress from this sort of harassment tactic. This no longer happens in civil trials today, so this part Art. I Sec. 6 of the Constitution is essentially obsolete.