Congress discussing Search Warrants, hmmm...

There has been a lot of debate recently about the warrant executed by the FBI to search Rep. William Jefferson's office. It's pretty bizarre to see Majority Leader, Denny Hastert, standing up to defend his Democratic colleague. I can't help thinking that this is a "pre-emptive strike" by someone looking for himself because he feels that he may already be in the crosshairs. It's so inspiring to see this do-nothing Congress to stand up on principle about search warrants.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), puts it very well in a speech from the floor...

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I disagree with the bipartisan House leadership criticism of the FBI's search of a Member's office. I know nothing specifically about the case, except that the uncontroverted public evidence did seem to justify the issuance of a warrant.

What we now have is a Congressional leadership, the Republican part of which has said it is okay for law enforcement to engage in warrantless searches of the average citizen, now objecting when a search, pursuant to a validly issued warrant, is conducted of a Member of Congress.

I understand that the speech and debate clause is in the Constitution. It is there because Queen Elizabeth I and King James I were disrespectful of Parliament. It ought to be, in my judgment, construed narrowly. It should not be in any way interpreted as meaning that we as Members of Congress have legal protections superior to those of the average citizen.

So I think it was a grave error to have criticized the FBI. I think what they did, they ought to be able to do in every case where they can get a warrant from a judge. I think, in particular, for the leadership of this House, which has stood idly by while this administration has ignored the rights of citizens, to then say we have special rights as Members of Congress is wholly inappropriate.