POL: Finally, an issue on which Democrats and Republicans can both agree.

[albionmoonlight]

Covering their own asses.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/....ap/index.html

[SirFozzie]

you know, I wish (futile I know) that we could just dump the entire congress out on it's ear and start over. House, Senate, all of it. Get some new folks who aren't fully in the barrell to take over.

[SackAttack]

We could, in the House, but the Senate would take a couple decades barring a Constitutional amendment.

[flere-imsaho]

Proportional Representation.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

you know, I wish (futile I know) that we could just dump the entire congress out on it's ear and start over. House, Senate, all of it. Get some new folks who aren't fully in the barrell to take over.

... who would quickly end up in the barrell when the money gets waved around.

[miked]

I'm no government expert or even a legal expert, but it seems as if the FBI got a warrant based on loads of cash found in his home and his failure to respond to a subpeona. Am I missing something, is there something in the constitution about not being able to search a congressperson's office?

[gstelmack]

So if the FBI can't police Congress, who exactly does Congress believe polices them?

[Warhammer]

Repeat after me, get rid of direct election of the Senate. Get rid of direct election of the Senate. Get rid of direct election of the Senate...

[cubboyroy1826]

Okay the fat asses are bitching even after 90k in cash was found in the guys freezer at home? Lemme guess he was saving that money to help in the New Orleans relief efforts. Time to fire everyone and start over.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Repeat after me, get rid of direct election of the Senate. Get rid of direct election of the Senate. Get rid of direct election of the Senate...

Huh? This was done to a House member.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by cubboyroy1826

Okay the fat asses are bitching even after 90k in cash was found in the guys freezer at home? Lemme guess he was saving that money to help in the New Orleans relief efforts. Time to fire everyone and start over.

This is really one of the best stories ever. I was half awake this morning listening to NPR and I thought I was dreaming when I was hearing the story about how they found cash wrapped in foil and in plastic bins in his freezer. Gold.

The most amusing line from the story:

"I think those materials ought to be returned," said Hastert, adding that the FBI agents involved "ought to be frozen out of that (case) for the sake of the Constitution."

Very unfortunate use of the word "frozen" in this case.

[Warhammer]

I understand that, but I believe that much of the current problem in Congress is due to the direct election of the Senate.

Since all members of Congress are now elected by the people, the members now all pander to their constituents. The result is that everyone is constantly campaigning, and doing what is best for their re-election campaign rather than what is best for the country. What happens in practice, is that many people are now trying to get what they can out of office now, since they may not be re-elected. This has always been a problem with the House (but that is the trade-off for the quick turnover in the House).

The Senate had more oversight and was less political in the past, whereas today everything is extremely political due to the direct election of the members of the Senate.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Repeat after me, get rid of direct election of the Senate. Get rid of direct election of the Senate. Get rid of direct election of the Senate...

Damn 17th Amendment!

http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/Hurrica...1123495&page=1

Amid the chaos and confusion that engulfed New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina struck, a congressman used National Guard troops to check on his property and rescue his personal belongings — even while New Orleans residents were trying to get rescued from rooftops. ...
Finally, according to the source, Jefferson emerged with a laptop computer, three suitcases, and a box about the size of a small refrigerator, which the enlisted men loaded up into the truck.

Good times.

[Warhammer]

And people say that Republicans are the party that sticks it to the little guy.

[cubboyroy1826]

I have become thoroughly frustrated with the entire political system in our country. Now dont get me wrong i would not want to live anywhere else after serving and living 4 year overseas. How the heck someone can defend or try to defer the interest in why this guy had the money in the bank by saying the FBI didnt have the right to search his freezer is ridiculous no matter what party they are from. I am not one in support of some of the big brother stuff that is going on but come on legal search or not 90k is a lot of dough to have sitting in the freezer no matter what the reason. The whole system of crooks needs to be revamped. By the time someone gets into office they owe so many people that got them there they can no longer think for themselves. What the hell do i know.

[kcchief19]

All kidding aside, I think the whole argument that the FBI (executive branch) cannot excute a search within the Capitol building (legislative branch) is an unconstitutional breach of the separation of powers doctrine is ludicrous.

By that logic, Bill Frist could transport teenagers across state lines to perform back-alley abortions in his Senate office or Nancy Pelosi could operate a crack, prostitution and black market weapons ring on the House floor and the FBI couldn't do a damn thing about.

You almost want to assume the reason so many congress members are up in arms is that they figure their shady business deals may be next on the hit list.

[kcchief19]

I think the idea that repealing the 17th Amendment would suddenly class up the Senate is a misnomer. I think there is a possibility it could make matters worse. The reason we have the 17th Amendment in the first place is that as people become more aware of the operation of their government and more knowledgeable of their elected officials, they were increasingly dissatisfied with their representation in the Senate.

All that repealing the 17th Amendment would do is change who Senators have to pander to slightly. If state legislatures still elected Senators, special interest PACs and party interests that focus their money on the Senate would insteady spend that money on state legislatures, who would then expect their Senators to kowtow to them. Now, instead of having a U.S. Senate beholden to major PACs and party special interest, every state legislator in the country would be.

Money doesn't play as much of a starring role on the state level in most places right now -- while some seats are certainly determined by the party hacks who have a stranglehold on the district and/or state, in a lot of state districts you can run scrappy insurgent campaigns and get somewhere. There are many more third-party and non-mainstream officials in state government right now. I think siphoning the money from Senate campaigns into the state campaigns would kill third-party candidates at the state level and make state legislatures even more in debt to major donors than they are currently.

[finkenst]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

We could, in the House, but the Senate would take a couple decades barring a Constitutional amendment.

actually it would only take a little about four and a half years from now to completely replace the senate.

[clintl]

I prefer Senators pandering to the constituents directly, as opposed to indirectly through the governors and state legislatures. The state legislatures are no better, and in many cases, worse. I see absolutely no benefit to placing another layer of politicians who act exactly the same as they do between them and us.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Repeat after me, get rid of direct election of the Senate. Get rid of direct election of the Senate. Get rid of direct election of the Senate...

I actually agree with this, though there is a zero chance of this ever happening. There was a run on bad/silly/extraneous Constitutional amendments in the second decade of the twentieth century. This was one of them.

I honestly think that a group of "statesmen" appointed by the Governors would yield a better, less self interested governing body than the current system. Granted I understand that a change was needed, but I'm pretty resolute that this change was the wrong one.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

I think the idea that repealing the 17th Amendment would suddenly class up the Senate is a misnomer. I think there is a possibility it could make matters worse. The reason we have the 17th Amendment in the first place is that as people become more aware of the operation of their government and more knowledgeable of their elected officials, they were increasingly dissatisfied with their representation in the Senate.

All that repealing the 17th Amendment would do is change who Senators have to pander to slightly. If state legislatures still elected Senators, special interest PACs and party interests that focus their money on the Senate would insteady spend that money on state legislatures, who would then expect their Senators to kowtow to them. Now, instead of having a U.S. Senate beholden to major PACs and party special interest, every state legislator in the country would be.

Money doesn't play as much of a starring role on the state level in most places right now -- while some seats are certainly determined by the party hacks who have a stranglehold on the district and/or state, in a lot of state districts you can run scrappy insurgent campaigns and get somewhere. There are many more third-party and non-mainstream officials in state government right now. I think siphoning the money from Senate campaigns into the state campaigns would kill third-party candidates at the state level and make state legislatures even more in debt to major donors than they are currently.

Weren't Senators appointed by Governors originally? The appointment of which had to be approved of by the corresponding state legislatures. It was my understanding that the problem was less that people were dissatisfied with their representation, but rather that evenly or closely divided State Legislatures resulted in a number of Senate seats going unfilled for long periods of time. Therefore many people simply weren't being represented in the Senate.

I wouldn't have any trouble with a Senator being appointed by the Governor. Anything that kept the Senator from continually running for re-election would be an improvement over the current system.

[Bonegavel]

"Not anyone here is above the law," Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, said Tuesday. But, she added, "I think you've seen abuse of power of the executive branch over this weekend."

According the case the FBI is building against this guy, I can't see how she can say this even without laughing. Oh wait, she is Nancy Pelosi. I really hope she stays on as lead dem in the house. Her constant idiocy helps to overshadow the wishy washy republicans. Nancy's mouth is basically free campaign money for GOP.

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

And people say that Republicans are the party that sticks it to the little guy.

They all stick it to the little guy.. its just that while one party is thumping you in the ass, the other party is watching and saying how much better it would be if they were the ones thumping you in the ass.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I understand that, but I believe that much of the current problem in Congress is due to the direct election of the Senate.

Since all members of Congress are now elected by the people, the members now all pander to their constituents. The result is that everyone is constantly campaigning, and doing what is best for their re-election campaign rather than what is best for the country. What happens in practice, is that many people are now trying to get what they can out of office now, since they may not be re-elected. This has always been a problem with the House (but that is the trade-off for the quick turnover in the House).

The Senate had more oversight and was less political in the past, whereas today everything is extremely political due to the direct election of the members of the Senate.

Yeah, because Senators in the 1930s were running huge money campaigns and campaigned from the second they walked in the door....

The fact of campaigns today, with TV dominating so much, would make no difference to how Senators would act if the state legislatures elected them. Hell, they'd be under far, far more pressure to bring pork back to the state for one. They'd still pander to the people of the state, just trying to indirectly affect the legislature composition. It really would change little, and may makes things worse because from my experience, Congress has NOTHING on ethical violations compared to state legislatures.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Bonegavel

"Not anyone here is above the law," Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, said Tuesday. But, she added, "I think you've seen abuse of power of the executive branch over this weekend."

According the case the FBI is building against this guy, I can't see how she can say this even without laughing. Oh wait, she is Nancy Pelosi. I really hope she stays on as lead dem in the house. Her constant idiocy helps to overshadow the wishy washy republicans. Nancy's mouth is basically free campaign money for GOP.

Actually, the Congress is policed by the Capitol Police, and it makes a lot of sense to not allow the executive branch to search congressional offices, and as far as I know has never happened before.

The House is supposed to police itself for ethics violations, but unfortunately the GOP has shut down the House ethics committee, so that's not an option.

[MrBigglesworth]

Looks like Hastert may have been speaking in favor of self-preservation more than others:

The Speaker of the House of Representatives, Dennis Hastert, is under investigation by the FBI, which is seeking to determine his role in an ongoing public corruption probe into members of Congress, ABC News has learned from high level official sources.

Federal officials say the information implicating Hastert was developed from convicted lobbyists who are now cooperating with the government.

Part of the investigation involves a letter Hastert wrote three years ago, urging the Secretary of the Interior to block a casino on an Indian reservation that would have competed with other tribes.

The other tribes were represented by convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff who reportedly has provided details of his dealings with Hastert as part of his plea agreement with the government.

The letter was written shortly after a fund-raiser for Hastert at a restaurant owned by Abramoff. Abramoff and his clients contributed more than $26,000 at the time.

[JW]

House leaders have conceded that the search was constitutional, though they want to clarify procedures for future searches. Maybe they just want to be notified in advance in the future so they can hide the evidence. link and excerpt:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060527/...MzBHNlYwM3MDM-

WASHINGTON - House leaders acknowledged Friday that FBI agents with a court-issued warrant can legally search a congressman's office, but they said they want procedures established after agents with a court warrant took over a lawmaker's office last week.

[digamma]

We had dinner last night with a friend whose dad is considering running for Jefferson's seat. The thing holding him back? He doesn't think he can win.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

...

The House is supposed to police itself for ethics violations, but unfortunately the GOP has shut down the House ethics committee, so that's not an option.

I was under the impression that they repealed all or at least most of the save Delay measures relatively soon after passing them.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I was under the impression that they repealed all or at least most of the save Delay measures relatively soon after passing them.

After the debacle of the Delay rule, they put party loyalists onto the committee (kicking out at least one person that had been critical of Delay) and tried to put rule changes into effect that would have made it harder to investigate someone. So the committee was shut down in gridlock, and just recently has started working again. They just last week opened investigations into Ney and Jefferson, whose stories have been going on for over a year, at least in Ney's case.

[ice4277]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Actually, the Congress is policed by the Capitol Police, and it makes a lot of sense to not allow the executive branch to search congressional offices, and as far as I know has never happened before.

Who has oversight of the Capitol Police? Not trying to troll, I don't know the answer and am too lazy to look it up.