Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
sear

U.S. Members of Congress above the law?

12 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

United States Constitution:

ARTICLE 1. SECTION 6.

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.

I've read reports that members of Congress (MOC) have been caught DWI, but being allowed to proceed, due to this Constitutional stipulation.

If so, is that going too far?

And if so, what's to be done about it?

==========================

note:

This lead edited because despite what I typed, the topic title originally listed as "U".

Nope. No idea why.

Edited by sear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see what the problem is here...they receive a paycheck (paid out of the treasury and regulated by law,) and they can't be arrested while in the middle of matters regarding Senate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"I don't see what the problem is here.." DG

Easily explained.

DWI = driving while intoxicated

It's not only a major threat to public safety*.

DWI is outlawed throughout the United States, for nearly everyone!

The only ones exempt, the only humans on Earth allowed to break this law, a members of the U.S. Congress.

"I don't see what the problem is here.." DG

MOC are just as dangerous to public safety when they drive drunk, as the rest of us are.

We're not allowed to.

They are.

* Statistically, intoxication is associated with a high percentage of automobile related injuries, property damage, and fatalities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All it says is that they can't be arrested during thier attendance at a session of thier respective houses. It doesn't say they can't be arrested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the intent is to stop the government of the day arresting senators turning up for a vote.

Not sure how you fix it and allow the original intent to remain. Perhaps a mandatory breathalyzer test has to be taken and if found to be over the limit, a mandatory police escort to Congress followed by later prosecution.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Easily explained.

DWI = driving while intoxicated

It's not only a major threat to public safety*.

DWI is outlawed throughout the United States, for nearly everyone!

The only ones exempt, the only humans on Earth allowed to break this law, a members of the U.S. Congress.

MOC are just as dangerous to public safety when they drive drunk, as the rest of us are.

We're not allowed to.

They are.

* Statistically, intoxication is associated with a high percentage of automobile related injuries, property damage, and fatalities.

Ok in that context I see where your concern lies. All it would take is a small amendment to fix this. The stipulations listed are "They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace". It would be easy to add "intoxication"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"It would be easy to add "intoxication"" DG

I've never seen a one-sided coin.

Surely they could do that. Of course, it would be a Constitutional amendment. And that would have to undergo the ratification process; a costly and time-consuming process.

But I think the embarrassment it would shine on them would be prohibitive.

Then there's the problematic issue of definition. What is "intoxication"?

The cut-off for DWI is 0.08% BAC in many States.

The threshold for Driving While Impaired is even a lower BAC.

The States of Washington and Colorado are struggling with this right now.

THC, believed the psycho-active ingredient in marijuana remains in the body long after the intoxication subsides.

In these two States where recreational use of marijuana is now legal, they seem to be settling on an arbitrary standard that may snag a lot of unintoxicated users.

//////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

Surely we need to allow our MOC unimpeded access to their legislative duties.

Sadly, some of them don't have the self-control to get sober before they begin the journey.

It's a problem.

Perhaps a better solution would be to allow drunk MOC to continue to the Capitol, but in a taxi, or chauffered by police; and then send that individual intoxicated MOC the bill.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"All it says is that they can't be arrested during thier attendance at a session of thier respective houses. It doesn't say they can't be arrested." OS

Not only during their attendance. It also says:

"... and in going to and returning from the same" Const.

I don't know what the next part means.

"... they shall not be questioned in any other Place." Const.

Does that mean they can't be charged after the fact?

What's the statute of limitations on DWI? I thought it was around a year.

"I believe the intent is to stop the government of the day arresting senators turning up for a vote." T

We may be of one mind on it.

My impression is they were trying to prevent manipulators trying to determine the outcome of specific legislative votes, by detaining enough Congressional voters, to toss the legislative vote outcome to the opposite vote outcome.

That what you meant?

"Perhaps a mandatory breathalyzer test has to be taken and if found to be over the limit, a mandatory police escort to Congress followed by later prosecution." T

Interesting point!

Here's some of the wording:

"They shall ... be privileged from Arrest ..." Const.

It doesn't say anything about an OST, or breathalyzer. They flunk the breathalyzer, and then are allowed to proceed without arrest.

NOTE:

The COP could take the breathalyzer evidence, and then tell the MOC, you are free to go. But if you do, I'll arrest you as soon as Congress recesses.

I won't arrest you now. But I can't stop you from following me to the police station, where you may ... (whatever, pay a fine, sleep it off, call a cab ...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never seen a one-sided coin.

Surely they could do that. Of course, it would be a Constitutional amendment. And that would have to undergo the ratification process; a costly and time-consuming process.

But I think the embarrassment it would shine on them would be prohibitive.

Then there's the problematic issue of definition. What is "intoxication"?

The cut-off for DWI is 0.08% BAC in many States.

The threshold for Driving While Impaired is even a lower BAC.

The States of Washington and Colorado are struggling with this right now.

THC, believed the psycho-active ingredient in marijuana remains in the body long after the intoxication subsides.

In these two States where recreational use of marijuana is now legal, they seem to be settling on an arbitrary standard that may snag a lot of unintoxicated users.

//////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

Surely we need to allow our MOC unimpeded access to their legislative duties.

Sadly, some of them don't have the self-control to get sober before they begin the journey.

It's a problem.

Perhaps a better solution would be to allow drunk MOC to continue to the Capitol, but in a taxi, or chauffered by police; and then send that individual intoxicated MOC the bill.

AND make the offense public. Several years ago I, to my everlasting shame, got a DUI. I admitted my guilt, paid a fine of a couple thousand dollars and went to several classes required by the state for offenders. I learned later that if I had refused to acknowledge my guilt and hired an attorney, five thousand dollars later I would have had a clean record instead of having the REAL stigma that attaches to DUI offenders these days - even first time offenders. I was wrong and admitted it. I'm thankful that I hurt no one and I know I did the right thing. But where is the justice when a person of means can just walk away from such a mistake if they will pay an attorney? Two classes of justice.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
" But where is the justice when a person of means can just walk away from such a mistake if they will pay an attorney? Two classes of justice. " at

a) "I feel your pain."

B) It has been ever thus!

"A good lawyer knows the law.

A great lawyer knows the judge."

money & influence

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the intent is to stop the government of the day arresting senators turning up for a vote.

Except that "treason" is a valid reason for arrest - if any government was going to crack down on senators in order to control the vote, saying they were "treasonous" is basically the default position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except that "treason" is a valid reason for arrest - if any government was going to crack down on senators in order to control the vote, saying they were "treasonous" is basically the default position.

I think if you accuse a Member of Congress with Treason, then you'd better have a lot of proof to hand. It's really not the kind of thing you'd be able to get away with on a regular basis.

Whereas - If it turns out under further investigation that your blood test proves there's no blood alcohol in your blood, but the police "mistakenly" thought you had failed your sobriety test...

We may be of one mind on it.

My impression is they were trying to prevent manipulators trying to determine the outcome of specific legislative votes, by detaining enough Congressional voters, to toss the legislative vote outcome to the opposite vote outcome.

That what you meant?

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.