6 ms·

Article 1 of the US Constitution: "[Senators and Representatives] shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest

by nknight 15y ago

Article 1 of the US Constitution: "[Senators and Representatives] 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." This passage has an incredibly long and complex history behind it and implicates ancient rights and privileges beyond its literal text dating back to the earliest days of Parliament that are too complex to describe in detail here, but people need to realize that it does exist, it exists for a reason, and it has implications for attempts to restrict "insider trading" by members of Congress. Even bribery statutes can come into conflict with the Congressional privilege, and some prosecutions that probably should be brought never will be because it becomes such a close call in court. This particular problem can and should be fixed, probably by requiring a blind trust, but people need to realize that such legislation is getting into an area that's much more complex than simply "they shouldn't personally profit from their privileged position" -- few would argue with the principle, but all should be cautious that we don't end up with laws that risk partisan prosecutions for legitimate political activity.

einhverfr 15y ago
That doesn't mean they can't be arrested and charged with crimes they commit while in office, as long as the arrest and trial occurs after they leave, does it? Indeed they could even be charged in between sessions, couldn't they?
- nknight 15y ago
  The point isn't the "arrest" part (which doesn't mean what you think, actually -- they can, in fact, be arrested and charged for serious crimes while serving, and have been), it's the totality of the clause and its history, which acts to protect and caution against the criminalization or suppression of political activity. It's not a straightjacket, but more a statement of principle and warning shot. Edit: By the way, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_privilege http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_privilege
linuxhansl 15y ago
This is a very important rule that facilitates the separation of the three powers: executive, legislature, and judiciary. The idea is that if one institution or person has any two of these power it can "take over the country". Executive and judiciary: Enforce your own court orders. Executive and legislature: Enforce your own laws. Legislature and judiciary: Enforce your own laws (through the courts this time). That is why members of congress cannot be arrested. That is actually the same in most democracies. Ultimately this does not apply here, though, as (1) congress can remove other member from congress and (2) prosecution and arrest can start as soon as the person is no longer member of congress. Edit: Spelling
Duff 15y ago
The issue here isn't this particular problem. The insider trading problem is just a particularly egregious example of how modern American government holds many of the fundamental founding principles of the nation in contempt. I respect the need for our representatives to be able to speak their mind and vote their conscience without fear of intimidation by some tyrant in the executive or judiciary. But according to the byzantine code of law enacted by Congress and based on statements made in the 60 Minutes report, every member of congress mentioned in this article likely committed one or more felonious acts. Who watches the watchers? The rules of the House of Representatives and Senate need to address issues such as this. Widespread corruption of this nature, extending into the leadership of the Congress brings the integrity of the United States government into question.
- chernevik 15y ago
  _You_ watch the watchers. The best reason for a simpler, smaller government is the ability to see what it's doing, and for whom.
danbmil99 15y ago
What should happen at the very least is they should be required to disclose publicly exactly what investments they have made. Also, while they may be immune from prosecution, it should be considered an ethical violation to fail to disclose if you have a financial interest in pending legislation, and/or to be profiting in a way that would be considered illegal in another context.

by nknight 15y ago

einhverfr 15y ago

That doesn't mean they can't be arrested and charged with crimes they commit while in office, as long as the arrest and trial occurs after they leave, does it? Indeed they could even be charged in between sessions, couldn't they?

nknight 15y ago
The point isn't the "arrest" part (which doesn't mean what you think, actually -- they can, in fact, be arrested and charged for serious crimes while serving, and have been), it's the totality of the clause and its history, which acts to protect and caution against the criminalization or suppression of political activity. It's not a straightjacket, but more a statement of principle and warning shot. Edit: By the way, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_privilege http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_privilege

linuxhansl 15y ago

This is a very important rule that facilitates the separation of the three powers: executive, legislature, and judiciary. The idea is that if one institution or person has any two of these power it can "take over the country". Executive and judiciary: Enforce your own court orders. Executive and legislature: Enforce your own laws. Legislature and judiciary: Enforce your own laws (through the courts this time). That is why members of congress cannot be arrested. That is actually the same in most democracies. Ultimately this does not apply here, though, as (1) congress can remove other member from congress and (2) prosecution and arrest can start as soon as the person is no longer member of congress. Edit: Spelling

Duff 15y ago

The issue here isn't this particular problem. The insider trading problem is just a particularly egregious example of how modern American government holds many of the fundamental founding principles of the nation in contempt. I respect the need for our representatives to be able to speak their mind and vote their conscience without fear of intimidation by some tyrant in the executive or judiciary. But according to the byzantine code of law enacted by Congress and based on statements made in the 60 Minutes report, every member of congress mentioned in this article likely committed one or more felonious acts. Who watches the watchers? The rules of the House of Representatives and Senate need to address issues such as this. Widespread corruption of this nature, extending into the leadership of the Congress brings the integrity of the United States government into question.

chernevik 15y ago
_You_ watch the watchers. The best reason for a simpler, smaller government is the ability to see what it's doing, and for whom.

danbmil99 15y ago

What should happen at the very least is they should be required to disclose publicly exactly what investments they have made. Also, while they may be immune from prosecution, it should be considered an ethical violation to fail to disclose if you have a financial interest in pending legislation, and/or to be profiting in a way that would be considered illegal in another context.