Do you trust members of Congress to tell the truth?

[formercia]

A member of Congress has the right to not tell the truth. This is protected by the Constitution.

"(c) The Speech or Debate Clause forecloses inquiry not only into the "content" of a congressional speech but into circumstances involving the motives for making it. Pp. 182-183."


http://supreme.justia.com/us/383/169/

U.S. Supreme Court
UNITED STATES v. JOHNSON, 383 U.S. 169 (1966)
383 U.S. 169

UNITED STATES v. JOHNSON.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT.
No. 25.
Argued November 10 and 15, 1965.
Decided February 24, 1966.

Respondent, a former Congressman, was convicted on several counts of violating the conflict of interest statute (18 U.S.C. 281) and on one count of conspiring to defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. 371). The conspiracy charge involved an alleged agreement whereby respondent and another Congressman would attempt to influence the Justice Department to dismiss pending savings and loan company mail fraud indictments. As part of the conspiracy respondent allegedly delivered for pay a speech in Congress favorable to loan companies. The Government contended and adduced proof to show that the speech was delivered to serve private interests; that respondent was not acting in good faith; and that he did not prepare or deliver the speech as a Congressman would ordinarily do. The Court of Appeals set aside the conviction on the conspiracy count as being barred by Art. I, 6, of the Constitution, providing that "for any Speech or Debate in either House" Senators and Representatives "shall not be questioned in any other Place," and ordered retrial on the substantive counts. Held:

1. The Speech or Debate Clause precludes judicial inquiry into the motivation for a Congressman's speech and prevents such a speech from being made the basis of a criminal charge against a Congressman for conspiracy to defraud the Government by impeding the due discharge of its functions. Pp. 173-185.

(a) The Speech or Debate Clause, which emerged from the long struggle for parliamentary supremacy, embodies a privilege designed to protect members of the legislature against prosecution by a possibly unfriendly executive and conviction by a possibly hostile judiciary. Pp. 177-180.

(b) The privilege, which will be broadly construed to effectuate its purposes, Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168; Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367, was created not primarily to avoid private suits as in those cases, but to prevent legislative intimidation by and accountability to the other branches of government. Pp. 180-182.

Page 383 U.S. 169, 170

(c) The Speech or Debate Clause forecloses inquiry not only into the "content" of a congressional speech but into circumstances involving the motives for making it. Pp. 182-183.

(d) Prosecution under a general criminal statute involving inquiry into the motives for and circumstances surrounding a congressional speech is barred even though the gravamen of the offense is the alleged conspiracy rather than the speech itself. Pp. 184-185.

2. The Government is not precluded from retrying the conspiracy count as purged of all the elements offensive to the Speech or Debate Clause. P. 185.

3. This Court does not review the Court of Appeals' determination that the substantive counts be retried because of the prejudicial effect thereon resulting from the unconstitutional aspects of the conspiracy count since the Government does not dispute that determination in this proceeding. Pp. 185-186.

[LWolf]

1. Err...NO.

I trust members of congress to say whatever benefits them at the moment.

On edit: There are some members of Congress that I HAVE heard speaking the truth, and I appreciate them for that. It's rare.

[Totally Committed]

2. No.

That would be insane, at this point...

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. -- Benjamin Franklin

There is a limit to how many times you can trust someone and then be disappointed before your trust in them becomes insanity. Just my opinion, of course, but there it is.

TC

[karynnj]

3. Trust but verify in the case of the "best" Congress people

and shake your head skeptically at the worst. There are some people who lie with ease.

Te best people in both parties will not knowingly lie because it would hurt their effectiveness and their trustworthiness. However, they may not tell the whole truth, editing out things they know that don't fit their point of view.

I think anyone who has seriously followed politics has some people they trust far more than others. the basis for that is that over time, you can see that they were honest. For me, I would trust Senators Feingold and Kerry because I have never seen either of them ever caught in a lie - and I have seen a lot of them. Others may trust other people.(Incidently, that may be why both are good on MTP and other gotcha shows. You can always explain yourself if you are always basically honest.)

Also, even if they are not lying they can be wrong. They may be speaking the truth as they know it.

[Mutineer]

4. In a word? No.

I'm getting to the point that I don't trust ANY politician anymore. I hate to be so jaded and cynical but we've been promised too much that our politicans have never delivered on.

[dmosh42]

5. Have to make this point....

Recently, the Senate was passing legislature affecting the structure of the FDA, and Byron Dorgan, certainly a man of the people, proposed an amendment to allow the importation of prescription drugs, with safety clauses built in. This has been one of the goals and promises of the Democratic leadership. I watched the debate on C-Span,(much of it) and along the way Sen Cochran from Miss. proposes to amend Dorgan's amendment! Basically, his change was proposed by the pharmacy industry, and provided that one branch of the gov't would have to inspect and approve any imported drugs, plus guarantee their safety. The head of that dept. had said there was no way they could take on this responsibility with their manpower, thus proving that this 'Cochran' amendment was really a 'poison pill' to Dorgan's amendment. Dorgan tried to rally 'our' Democratic senators to kill off Cochran's proposal, but all the pharmacy industrie's iou's were called in, and the Cochran Amendment passed. This killed off any chance of cheaper drugs for now. But among those not helping us were Kerry and Kennedy voted with the industry, plus missing this crucial vote was Obama and Biden. Talk about trust!

[formercia]

7. Missing the vote

Too busy running for President.:sarcasm:

Members of Congress should be allowed to vote, regardless of location. It's technically feasible. They can cast their vote via a secure Internet connection during the period allowed on the floor.

It would get rid of a lot of lame excuses as to why they couldn't vote.

[karynnj]

9. Both Kennedy and Kerry explained the vote

Kennedy had written landmark legislation that would address some of the extremely important quality of food issues - that amendment would doom the bill. Kennedy said he had introduced stand alone legislation to get the cheaper drugs.

[formercia]

6. The purpose of the "Speech and Debate Clause"

Many have asked why the Congress doesn't speak Truth to Power. What are they afraid of?

The purpose of the 'clause' is to protect members of Congress form a potentially hostile Executive or Judiciary.


So, speak up, boys and girls.

You have no excuse. Either you are part of the solution, or part of the problem.

[hughee99]

8. NO. n/t