New York Times Editorial - In search of corruption
New York Times Editorial - In search of corruption
Copyright by The New York Times
WEDNESDAY, MAY 24, 2006
The court-authorized search of the congressional office of Representative William Jefferson by U.S. agents was as unprecedented in the 217-year history of Congress as it was alarming to lawmakers of both parties.
Critics instantly suggested that Jefferson, a Louisiana Democrat suspected of accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes, should have been spared the raid under some broad interpretation of the Constitution's separation of executive and legislative powers.
Fuming lawmakers claim that the Constitution's Speech and Debate Clause - which protects a lawmaker from politically motivated criminal harassment in the course of official business - should extend to making Jefferson's office inviolable. This would be a stretch, considering the range of criminal activity theoretically possible in congressional offices and the government's obligation to pursue and prosecute. Any number of constitutional scholars concur, although some legitimately question why investigators sought such a large-scale search warrant rather than specific subpoenas, as in previous investigations of lawmakers.
In the Jefferson case, prosecutors reported that they had already videotaped the congressman bagging a $100,000 bribe and had traced most of the money to a food freezer during a search of his home. It remains to be seen what additional evidence they were searching for in a raid so unnerving to Congress.
It's hard to remember when the issue of separations of powers has arisen under such an explosive combination of political circumstances: an all-night search on a quiet weekend during an election-year session that has already been roiled by separate corruption investigations.
Now the risk of political warfare between the congressional and executive branches is in the air. This can only be destructive, particularly for the separate criminal investigations of Jack Abramoff, the corrupt lobbyist, and Randy Cunningham, the imprisoned former congressman. Those cases suggest a pervasive, systemic form of corruption that does not seem to be at play in the Jefferson inquiry.
The House Republican majority leader, John Boehner, denounced the search as an "invasion" by the executive branch that might very well have to be protested to the Supreme Court. Short of that, however, congressional leaders - who have been all too lackadaisical in policing corruption on their own - would be wise to work out some ground rules with the Justice Department. Otherwise, they risk further embarrassment as the corruption investigations proceed.
Copyright by The New York Times
WEDNESDAY, MAY 24, 2006
The court-authorized search of the congressional office of Representative William Jefferson by U.S. agents was as unprecedented in the 217-year history of Congress as it was alarming to lawmakers of both parties.
Critics instantly suggested that Jefferson, a Louisiana Democrat suspected of accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes, should have been spared the raid under some broad interpretation of the Constitution's separation of executive and legislative powers.
Fuming lawmakers claim that the Constitution's Speech and Debate Clause - which protects a lawmaker from politically motivated criminal harassment in the course of official business - should extend to making Jefferson's office inviolable. This would be a stretch, considering the range of criminal activity theoretically possible in congressional offices and the government's obligation to pursue and prosecute. Any number of constitutional scholars concur, although some legitimately question why investigators sought such a large-scale search warrant rather than specific subpoenas, as in previous investigations of lawmakers.
In the Jefferson case, prosecutors reported that they had already videotaped the congressman bagging a $100,000 bribe and had traced most of the money to a food freezer during a search of his home. It remains to be seen what additional evidence they were searching for in a raid so unnerving to Congress.
It's hard to remember when the issue of separations of powers has arisen under such an explosive combination of political circumstances: an all-night search on a quiet weekend during an election-year session that has already been roiled by separate corruption investigations.
Now the risk of political warfare between the congressional and executive branches is in the air. This can only be destructive, particularly for the separate criminal investigations of Jack Abramoff, the corrupt lobbyist, and Randy Cunningham, the imprisoned former congressman. Those cases suggest a pervasive, systemic form of corruption that does not seem to be at play in the Jefferson inquiry.
The House Republican majority leader, John Boehner, denounced the search as an "invasion" by the executive branch that might very well have to be protested to the Supreme Court. Short of that, however, congressional leaders - who have been all too lackadaisical in policing corruption on their own - would be wise to work out some ground rules with the Justice Department. Otherwise, they risk further embarrassment as the corruption investigations proceed.
posted by Carlos T Mock at 7:01 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home