3 ms·

> Congress isn't above lying about this. Agreed. I also note that the Intelligence Agencies aren't above lying to Congress (whether behind closed doors or in p

> Congress isn't above lying about this. Agreed. I also note that the Intelligence Agencies aren't above lying to Congress (whether behind closed doors or in public hearings), to the DoJ, the Supreme Court, the President, or anyone else for that matter. > Also... "prohibited"? By whom? Uh, actually prohibited by long-standing Federal law? USC Title 18, Section 793, and Section 798 totally apply here. Congressmen are NOT immune from prosecution that stems from their disclosure of classified information that they receive firsthand.[0] What's more, the Speech or Debate clause only protects Congressmen from arrest and detention while performing their official duties. It doesn't shield Congressmen from prosecution stemming from illegal acts performed while acting as Congressmen. So, no, Federal agencies can't prevent[1] Congressmen from revealing directly-disclosed-to-the-congressman classified information on the debate floor. But then, a Congressman can't protect himself from prosecution, fines, and jail time after the big reveal. [0] Remember that the Pentagon Papers were sent to a Congressman by a newspaper. Generally speaking, disclosure of classified information that's in the public interest by a person who is not under an obligation to control access to said information is a protected activity, as is disclosure of classified info by the press. [1] Though, they can directly discourage it by limiting cooperation with Committees and access to personnel. This would clearly be a roadblock, rather than a permanent obstruction, but it would probably serve as a permanent obstruction to dispassionate Congressmen.

tsotha 11y ago
>Uh, actually prohibited by long-standing Federal law? USC Title 18, Section 793, and Section 798 totally apply here. Okay, and who makes the laws?
- simoncion 11y ago
  Okay, three things: 1) Both Congress and the Judiciary make law. Congress passes bills that become laws. The judicial system's rulings on cases form precedent which fills in the holes of (or totally perverts, depending on the case) law passed by Congress. The judicial system's part in this is part of why it's so critically important to get good rulings on edge cases. 2) You're implying that Congressmen should pass a law that places them above the law? That's an incredibly slippery slope. 3) To arg. ad. absurd.[0] your position: Congres should just pass a law that frees all Congressmen from any and all legal obligation while acting in their official capacity as Congressmen. This would obviously permit them to act in any way that they felt would best allow them to improve the health and well being of the Republic. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
  - tsotha 11y ago
    >Both Congress and the Judiciary make law. No. Judges do not make law. I see what you're trying to say, but making law is not their function. To the extent they engage in legislating from the bench they ought to be punished with censure and/or impeachment. >You're implying that Congressmen should pass a law that places them above the law? That's an incredibly slippery slope. That ship sailed long ago. Congress exempts itself from all sorts of laws. Insider trading is the one that pops into mind most prominently. And do you remember the House banking scandal? Most recently they've exempted themselves from the ACA. The idea laws pass only when voted on by the full house and yet only a tiny subset have the data to make decisions is absurd. If that's the state of the law now they ought to change it. >To arg. ad. absurd.[0] your position: Congress should just pass a law that frees all Congressmen from any and all legal obligation while acting in their official capacity as Congressmen. They certainly need enough freedom to do their jobs. That's why the constitution includes the Speech and Debate clause.
    - simoncion 11y ago
      No. We live in a system that considers both the text of a law and the Judicial precedent surrounding that law. The Judicial branch interprets law, and issues binding statements based on that interpretation multiple times per day every single day. For a recent example, search for "The state asked the court to employ a remedy in this situation" in [0] and read on until the end of the paragraph. Notice that this remedy is something that courts are supposed to do whenever they can. Moreover, history is littered with creative interpretations of law. Wickard v. Filburn is one of the most well-known. >The idea laws pass only when voted on by the full house and yet only a tiny subset have the data to make decisions is absurd. Heh. You really need to spend a month or two and read all the level-headed accounts you can find of the role that staffers and lobbyists play in Congress. I'm not sure, but I strongly suspect that when you learn how the sausage is made these days, you'll change some of your more objectionable opinions. [0] http://popehat.com/2015/05/27/minnesota-court-rules-that-criminal-libel-statute-is-unconstitutional/ http://popehat.com/2015/05/27/minnesota-court-rules-that-cri...
      - 11y ago

tsotha 11y ago

>Uh, actually prohibited by long-standing Federal law? USC Title 18, Section 793, and Section 798 totally apply here. Okay, and who makes the laws?

simoncion 11y ago
Okay, three things: 1) Both Congress and the Judiciary make law. Congress passes bills that become laws. The judicial system's rulings on cases form precedent which fills in the holes of (or totally perverts, depending on the case) law passed by Congress. The judicial system's part in this is part of why it's so critically important to get good rulings on edge cases. 2) You're implying that Congressmen should pass a law that places them above the law? That's an incredibly slippery slope. 3) To arg. ad. absurd.[0] your position: Congres should just pass a law that frees all Congressmen from any and all legal obligation while acting in their official capacity as Congressmen. This would obviously permit them to act in any way that they felt would best allow them to improve the health and well being of the Republic. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
- tsotha 11y ago
  >Both Congress and the Judiciary make law. No. Judges do not make law. I see what you're trying to say, but making law is not their function. To the extent they engage in legislating from the bench they ought to be punished with censure and/or impeachment. >You're implying that Congressmen should pass a law that places them above the law? That's an incredibly slippery slope. That ship sailed long ago. Congress exempts itself from all sorts of laws. Insider trading is the one that pops into mind most prominently. And do you remember the House banking scandal? Most recently they've exempted themselves from the ACA. The idea laws pass only when voted on by the full house and yet only a tiny subset have the data to make decisions is absurd. If that's the state of the law now they ought to change it. >To arg. ad. absurd.[0] your position: Congress should just pass a law that frees all Congressmen from any and all legal obligation while acting in their official capacity as Congressmen. They certainly need enough freedom to do their jobs. That's why the constitution includes the Speech and Debate clause.
  - simoncion 11y ago
    No. We live in a system that considers both the text of a law and the Judicial precedent surrounding that law. The Judicial branch interprets law, and issues binding statements based on that interpretation multiple times per day every single day. For a recent example, search for "The state asked the court to employ a remedy in this situation" in [0] and read on until the end of the paragraph. Notice that this remedy is something that courts are supposed to do whenever they can. Moreover, history is littered with creative interpretations of law. Wickard v. Filburn is one of the most well-known. >The idea laws pass only when voted on by the full house and yet only a tiny subset have the data to make decisions is absurd. Heh. You really need to spend a month or two and read all the level-headed accounts you can find of the role that staffers and lobbyists play in Congress. I'm not sure, but I strongly suspect that when you learn how the sausage is made these days, you'll change some of your more objectionable opinions. [0] http://popehat.com/2015/05/27/minnesota-court-rules-that-criminal-libel-statute-is-unconstitutional/ http://popehat.com/2015/05/27/minnesota-court-rules-that-cri...
    - 11y ago