I have a question of law. Why aren’t the proceedings of the House Judiciary Committee shielded from exactly the sort of suits that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has apparently filed against Jim Jordan under Article I Section 6 Clause 1 of the Constitution?
SECTION 6. Clause 1. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. 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; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
The emphasis is mine. My question is not about whether Rep. Jordan should meddle in Mr. Bragg’s prosecution: I don’t think he should. It’s about the legality of the suit filed by Mr. Bragg.
Update
I think that the House subpoenas of documents relating to Mr. Bragg’s investigations are a stretch, something it’s quite possible the House has no authority to do. I would think they’d need to show that federal money was being used in the investigation.
C’mon, Dave. That’s easy. Bragg is accusing them of Treason. Its just that he has this habit of not naming offenses……..
Maybe I am wrong; but the precedent set and reinforced from the Trump presidency is that Congresses subpoena powers are extremely broad. Basically anything that could be related to current or potential legislation is fair game.
And the circumstances, using potential (but not charged) Federal crimes which trigger State process crimes resulting in a indictment of Federally elected official would implicate all sorts of Federal legislation.
Another one of those “Where you stand depends on where you” where that familiar switcheroo where Democrats proclaim the House is abusing its powers while Republicans now defend the prerogatives of the House.
“I think that the House subpoenas of documents relating to Mr. Bragg’s investigations are a stretch, something it’s quite possible the House has no authority to do.”
I just saw interviews with Alan Dershowitz and Jon Turley who said that the House does in fact have the authority.
Dave Schuler: Why aren’t the proceedings of the House Judiciary Committee shielded from exactly the sort of suits that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has apparently filed against Jim Jordan under Article I Section 6 Clause 1 of the Constitution?
The Supreme Court has held that the Tenth Amendment provides that states have primary authority for defining and enforcing criminal law, and that the federal government should not interfere with state officers charged with upholding state law. (See Nat’l Fed. of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, United States v. Morrison, United States v. Lopez.)
While the Constitution protects Jordan’s right to spew, what Bragg v. Jordan actually asks of the court is that the court quash the subpoenas.
Notably, Jordan had already started his campaign before the indictments were even issued.
CuriousOnlooker: Maybe I am wrong; but the precedent set and reinforced from the Trump presidency is that Congresses subpoena powers are extremely broad. Basically anything that could be related to current or potential legislation is fair game.
The powers of Congress to investigate are extremely broad, but not infinite in extent. Grand jury secrecy and the independence of prosecutors during ongoing investigations are important safeguards, deeply rooted in common law and protected by statute.