I’m not a constitutional law expert, but this seems strange to me:
Jefferson argued that the first-of-its-kind raid trampled congressional independence. The Constitution prohibits the executive branch from using its law enforcement powers to interfere with the lawmaking process. The Justice Department said that declaring the search unconstitutional would essentially prohibit the FBI from ever looking at a lawmaker’s documents.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected that claim. The court held that, while the search itself was constitutional, FBI agents crossed the line when they viewed every record in the office without giving Jefferson the chance to argue that some documents involved legislative business.
How does that work? What’s to keep the Congressman from arguing that all the records had to do with legislative business, and not allowing them to see anything? The real issue here, since they at least ruled the raid itself illegal, is whether or not the trial judge will throw out the untainted evidence.
So, Barack Hussein Obama made a foreign policy speech today. Apparently, he wants to (among other things) invade Pakistan. So, he wants to make nice with North Korea and Ahmadinejad, and Hugo Chavez, and the chinless opthalmologist, all of whom are essentially at war with us, but invade a key ally in the war. Boy, I think four years of this guy would make us long for Jimmy Carter. If the intent of this was to disprove Hillary’s charge that he’s naive, I suspect that the effect will be the opposite.
Liberals used to be the ones who argued that sending U.S. troops abroad was a small price to pay to stop genocide; now they argue that genocide is a small price to pay to bring U.S. troops home.
Fred Thompson has a long essay. I like it. I hope that he can force a debate on actual constitutional principles (something that most Republicans seem quite out to sea on these days).