"First thing I thought when I heard the news (REALLY!)" Topic

link

So, a US Senator is ignorant of the Constitution, even when it would have gotten him off the hook? Won't be the first time, won't be the last.

The frightening thought to come from this is that if knowledge of the Constitution is a prerequisite, I am more qualified for the office than HE is!

I have to dust off my "Vote straight Whig, OFM for Senate" flyers.

Well, OFM… Ingorance is no excuss is it? At least that is what I was taught many, many years ago in my civics class in high school. Do they even have a civics class now???

I'll second the straight Whig nomination.

In all of the news coverage so far, your link is the first time I read about this angle. It would seem that not only Sen. Craig was ignorant of this clause in the Constitution, but so were all of the legal comentators, TV reporters, newspaper reporters, etc. etc. who have been covering and discussing this story.

Are you surprised that a modern politician is ignorant of such things? You can bet they know a great deal about polls, raising money and making speeches to niche voters. I'll support your campaign as the Whigs are a suitably archaic party for my tastes.

The reason that provision is there, and in most state constitutions as well, is that in the bad old days the executive (that would be the king) was known to use his power of arrest to affect the outcome of a vote. Just a few hours delay makes a lot of difference, sometimes.

The practical effect of that today, at least in Texas and Tennessee, is that legislators can drive down the interstate at 110 mph on their way to and from a session.

The resignation wasn't brought about by any real actionable wrongdoing, it was brought about by nearly universal pressure from both sides of the aisle in Congress.

He was doomed to becoming pretty much powerless, because everybody else more-or-less said they wouldn't be seen with him. It wasn't about legality, it was about peer pressure. He also more-or-less cut his own throat with his bigotry on this issue over the years – I believe 'hoist by his own petard' is the operative expression.
-Kle.

doc mcb

I know of a police officer that ticketed a Minnesota house member for doing 110 on interstate through St. Paul. The officer was told to tear up the ticket the next day, and was repremanded for even giving the ticket due to that clause in the Minnesota Con. There are those in govenment that do know about it.

I bet its a fairly big document. But you are right, someone on his team should have pointed it out.

"If the senator had flashed the Constitution at the officer as soon as the officer flashed his badge at him, the officer would have had no choice but to release the senator to go on his way."

I think not.

What probably would have happened is this. The officer would have arrested him, and he could have claimed privilege, but that would not have prevented him from receiving the citation/complaint.

The case might have been dismissed the next morning by the judge, but the damage would have been done, as it would have been all over the media.

Re voting for Whig and similar unusual parties, here in the UK there is the 'Monster Raving Loony Party', a genuine political party that puts up a few candidates at General Elections. It is great if you want to vote but cannot abide any of the 'conventional' parties.

You don't speed in Austin Texas, no matter who you are. They will ticket, arrest, whatever anybody, including the state senators.

Void Trekker, the exact text is:

They 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…

Article I, section 6

Which mens that the officer may not even issue a citation. He CAN carry the Senator's bag to the plane, grovelling and apologizing for wasting his time.
Tapping your foot in a Men's Room is neither "treason, felony (nor) breach of the peace."

But, the sentor in question is a dumb-ass. Which, of course is my whole point.
He pled guilty, when he shouldn't even have been arrested. I wonder how this would work out in Law 101?

*************
I found a link to a modern US Whig Party once, and they didn't seem all that loony. Something on the order of Constitutional Libertarian.
However, I have not been able to find it since, so I sense I could write my own platform, call myself a New Whig, and no one could object. .

"In all of the news coverage so far, your link is the first time I read about this angle. It would seem that not only Sen. Craig was ignorant of this clause in the Constitution, but so were all of the legal comentators, TV reporters, newspaper reporters, etc. etc. who have been covering and discussing this story."

A very good point. I have heard both sides of the aisle speaking about this issue and no one brought up the Constitution. I guess they all think it is irrelevant to today's government. Unfortunately they are probably right about that. I had always thought (when I was young and naive) that politicians when they had gotten voted into their office had to swear to uphold the Constitution. Maybe they would need to read it first! Maybe they cannot read…

DM

Hiis lawyer, Billy Martin, was just on the Today Show. Never mentioned it.
He was more interested in arguing irrelevancies.

A friend of mine who follows retail politics way more than I do says that Craig is being tossed overboard to shore up the party base – and because the Republican Governor of Idaho will replace him with someone from his own party. In contrast, the chap who was calling the escort agency from Capitol Hill is not under pressure because the Democratic Governor of Louisiana would replace him with a Democrat.

My friend quoted an old political axiom, "never be caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy".

None of this is listed in the Constitution.

So I take it that your police are perfectly within their rights to STOP him as long as they don't arrest him, wait until he has finished his stint as a minor deity and ARREST him when he gets home?

Any resemblance from the US Constituional to the US Federal Governemnt are merely opiates for the masses.

Neal

I imagine the law was written to prevent a hostile executive branch from detaining selected legislators in order to influence congressional votes. That obviously wasn't the case here.

However, if Craig is charged, and found guilty, he will likely find a friendly supreme court to which he can file his appeal. A SC Justice who is a Constitutionalist will almost certainly strike down the guilty ruling. But by then, who cares. Being freed on a legal technicality is probably worse for Craig than just accepting the ruling, or pleading no contest and laying low until the next political scandal makes him old news.

Note that Fischer has an addemdum to the article noting that because "breach of the peace" has such a broad definition, the arrest was probably perfectly constitutional (apparently a lawyer called him and suggested he look up "breach of the peace" in Black's Law Dictionary). Still an interesting essay, though.

Indeed. I thought he had pled guilty to disturbing the peace, which would have made it a pretty clear shot to "breach of the peace". I can't find a source for that, though, so I might have missed some crucial clause in the plea agreement.

@John the OFM

It's not a question of what the constitution says. It's a question of what the cop AT THE TIME is likely to do. Shove the constitution in a cop's face and you are asking for an obstruction charge on top of all else.

As I said, it WOULD get dismissed the next day, but the political damage would be done.

I'm a criminal lawyer. Trust me. The constitution has VERY little effect on what the "cop on the scene" is going to do. Just ask anybody who has ver had to argue the 4th Amendment.

The charge to which he pleaded was in fact disorderly conduct, although he was cited originally for lewd conduct. But I think either could credibly be construed as "breach of the peace," since both involve public violations of order.

I'm leaning towards the Anti-Masonic Party, myself, but the Free Soilers are making attractive promises, I must say.