thedrifter
11-19-08, 11:31 AM
Congressional accountability
Members of Congress need to speak without fear of litigation
Published: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 at 3:15 a.m.
Last Modified: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 at 9:53 a.m.
Should members of Congress be held responsible for what they say to their constituents and the media? One prominent congressman says no.
U.S. Rep. John Murtha, who opposes the Iraq war, told reporters that Marines in Iraq engaged in "cold-blooded murder and war crimes." Two of the Marines in the incident Murtha mentioned have sued him.
The Pennsylvania Democrat refuses to testify in the case. A judge ordered him to give a sworn deposition, but Murtha appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals. He had his government lawyer claim complete immunity for his remarks because they were given as part of his job as a member of Congress.
It's an interesting constitutional question. The Constitution gives members of Congress immunity from litigation "for any Speech or Debate in either House" of Congress.
Murtha claims that this immunity extends to any activity connected to his business as a member of Congress and allows him to refuse to testify in connection with the lawsuit brought against him.
Marine Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich's lawyers claim the immunity does not extend that far. Murtha was not engaged in a speech or debate in either house of Congress when he made his remarks about Wuterich and his fellow Marines. He was talking to reporters. They say he should be held accountable for those remarks.
There is also some obvious hypocrisy here. While Democratic leaders criticize the White House for claiming executive privilege and refusing to let presidential aides testify to Congress, one of their own is refusing to testify in court, claiming his own congressional privilege.
But, as gratifying as it would be to see a congressional blowhard brought to Earth and held responsible for his exaggerated rhetoric, Murtha's claim should be upheld.
The Founding Fathers included congressional immunity in the Constitution for a reason. Members of Congress have to be able to hold open discussions on the issues without worrying about someone suing them for what they say. This case is a good example. The Iraq war is a critical national issue. Murtha and other members of Congress have to be able to discuss it and declare their opinions, well founded or not, without fear of litigation.
The job of a representative or senator is no longer limited to debates and speeches on the House or Senate floor. It also consists of speeches in the media rooms each house has established and appearances on Sunday morning talk shows. Members of Congress should be free to tell Americans what they think in those venues - even if what they think is wrong and their opinions are irresponsible.
Those members are ultimately held accountable by the voters, not by the courts.
Ellie
Members of Congress need to speak without fear of litigation
Published: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 at 3:15 a.m.
Last Modified: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 at 9:53 a.m.
Should members of Congress be held responsible for what they say to their constituents and the media? One prominent congressman says no.
U.S. Rep. John Murtha, who opposes the Iraq war, told reporters that Marines in Iraq engaged in "cold-blooded murder and war crimes." Two of the Marines in the incident Murtha mentioned have sued him.
The Pennsylvania Democrat refuses to testify in the case. A judge ordered him to give a sworn deposition, but Murtha appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals. He had his government lawyer claim complete immunity for his remarks because they were given as part of his job as a member of Congress.
It's an interesting constitutional question. The Constitution gives members of Congress immunity from litigation "for any Speech or Debate in either House" of Congress.
Murtha claims that this immunity extends to any activity connected to his business as a member of Congress and allows him to refuse to testify in connection with the lawsuit brought against him.
Marine Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich's lawyers claim the immunity does not extend that far. Murtha was not engaged in a speech or debate in either house of Congress when he made his remarks about Wuterich and his fellow Marines. He was talking to reporters. They say he should be held accountable for those remarks.
There is also some obvious hypocrisy here. While Democratic leaders criticize the White House for claiming executive privilege and refusing to let presidential aides testify to Congress, one of their own is refusing to testify in court, claiming his own congressional privilege.
But, as gratifying as it would be to see a congressional blowhard brought to Earth and held responsible for his exaggerated rhetoric, Murtha's claim should be upheld.
The Founding Fathers included congressional immunity in the Constitution for a reason. Members of Congress have to be able to hold open discussions on the issues without worrying about someone suing them for what they say. This case is a good example. The Iraq war is a critical national issue. Murtha and other members of Congress have to be able to discuss it and declare their opinions, well founded or not, without fear of litigation.
The job of a representative or senator is no longer limited to debates and speeches on the House or Senate floor. It also consists of speeches in the media rooms each house has established and appearances on Sunday morning talk shows. Members of Congress should be free to tell Americans what they think in those venues - even if what they think is wrong and their opinions are irresponsible.
Those members are ultimately held accountable by the voters, not by the courts.
Ellie