You may be falling under the spell of Tom's reality distortion field. He's trying to portray this as about a blanket immunity from prosecution, when the Constitution is quite clear, on that part at least: "except treason, felony and breach of the peace".
Breach of the peace is easy, because by definition it takes place in public: Rep. Cynthia McKinney was videotaped bitchslapping a Capitol policeman. But investigation of the more serious crimes is a bit tricky, since such investigations can easily be used for harrassment...and that is exactly the thing that the authors of the Constitution wanted to avoid.
Basically I'm not taking sides in the dispute itself. I only dispute Tom's assertion that this isn't a Consitutional issue. It'll have to be decided by the Supremes, and that's their job.
Current Events » in reply to You finally found something I can agree with you, and disagree with Robert
Careful, man
The whole thread (31 posts)
- Sorry, laws are for the little people.
- Another commentary, with some more details.
- Whoa. Check out Jerry Pournelle on this.
- There is a separation of branches issue
- Sorry about all the geek jars dropping, but
- Article I, Section 6
- I see little difference between Republicans & Democrats