Thread: Legislative immunity

Originally Posted by JAD_333

It pisses me off too, but the way to curtail them is to make them public and see what the voters have to say. Taking away immunity risks a far greater problem: Political mischief to prevent legislators from voting.

If they are not good to DUI, how are they any good to vote?

Originally Posted by Doktor

If they are not good to DUI, how are they any good to vote?

The question is, who decides? If you throw him in jail and a key law is passed by 1 vote while he is locked up...you see what I mean. But I would have the cop drive him to the statehouse and dump him on the steps. Hey, it's not like this happens all the time everywhere.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

The question is, who decides? If you throw him in jail and a key law is passed by 1 vote while he is locked up...you see what I mean. But I would have the cop drive him to the statehouse and dump him on the steps. Hey, it's not like this happens all the time everywhere.

Who decides what? If they were drunk? It is a measurable category. Also it can be done with blood sampling, besides the word of the cop should be enough, right?

As per your example with 1 vote... They are elected to do a very responsible job, you'd expect them to be responsible and not DUI heading to vote.

Originally Posted by Doktor

Who decides what? If they were drunk? It is a measurable category. Also it can be done with blood sampling, besides the word of the cop should be enough, right?

As per your example with 1 vote... They are elected to do a very responsible job, you'd expect them to be responsible and not DUI heading to vote.

Deciding he's too drunk to drive is not the same as deciding whether he's too drunk to vote. The threshold for drunk driving is so low that someone can qualify for DUI and still not feel drunk.

I agree they were elected to do a responsible job and should stay off the bottle before driving in to vote, but that's not the issue. The issue is preventing police from interfering with a legislator doing his job on a trumped-up pretext, which is why the immunity exists.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

Deciding he's too drunk to drive is not the same as deciding whether he's too drunk to vote. The threshold for drunk driving is so low that someone can qualify for DUI and still not feel drunk.

I agree they were elected to do a responsible job and should stay off the bottle before driving in to vote, but that's not the issue. The issue is preventing police from interfering with a legislator doing his job on a trumped-up pretext, which is why the immunity exists.

What you are saying here is that the very few that make the system don't believe in it. How are the other citizens protected from the same?

Originally Posted by Doktor

What you are saying here is that the very few that make the system don't believe in it. How are the other citizens protected from the same?

What I am saying is that a legislator should be immune from the police and unscrupulous forces that would prevent him from doing his legislative duty.

I am also saying that this immunity should be protected even if legislators occasionally get away with speeding or drunk driving.

I would, however, favor a system that reports violations by legislators and provides them with alternate transportation if it is unsafe for them to drive.

We have thousands of legislators in the US; they aren't all saints, but most know bad press will end their career. The way to fight bad behavior is by reporting it.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

What I am saying is that a legislator should be immune from the police and unscrupulous forces that would prevent him from doing his legislative duty.

We have those protections already. Interfering with the voting process carries a severe punishment. A cop detaining a legislator for a BS reason would be a clear, cut and dried, case. A better way to go would be to have a judicial process in place incase such a thing would happen. Making those that make the laws, "above the law" invites corruption and is absolutely the worse road to take.

Originally Posted by bonehead

We have those protections already. Interfering with the voting process carries a severe punishment. A cop detaining a legislator for a BS reason would be a clear, cut and dried, case. A better way to go would be to have a judicial process in place incase such a thing would happen. Making those that make the laws, "above the law" invites corruption and is absolutely the worse road to take.

I know we have immunity in place. I was replying to Dok to clarify my position.

I don't know what you mean by a "better way". There is no better way when it comes to protecting the legislative process. But if you mean there is a better way to handle abuses of immunity by legislators, I agree.

The voters need to know when their representatives claim immunity and to hear their defense for doing so. If their defense is blatantly hogwash, the voters ought to get another representative. No one should be above the law , but abusing immunity should be punished by the electorate, not the justice system.

Understand that this does not mean a legislator can do whatever he please or is forever free of the consequences of his actions. If a legislator is speeding to the statehouse to cast a vote and causes an accident which kills someone, he must be released to do his legislative duty, but he may still be arrested later face charges of, for example, vehicular homicide.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

I know we have immunity in place. I was replying to Dok to clarify my position.

I don't know what you mean by a "better way". There is no better way when it comes to protecting the legislative process. But if you mean there is a better way to handle abuses of immunity by legislators, I agree.

The voters need to know when their representatives claim immunity and to hear their defense for doing so. If their defense is blatantly hogwash, the voters ought to get another representative. No one should be above the law , but abusing immunity should be punished by the electorate, not the justice system.

Understand that this does not mean a legislator can do whatever he please or is forever free of the consequences of his actions. If a legislator is speeding to the statehouse to cast a vote and causes an accident which kills someone, he must be released to do his legislative duty, but he may still be arrested later face charges of, for example, vehicular homicide.

I agree that the voter does need to know when a legislator runs afoul of the law. Unfortunately, all too many times the events get swept under the rug, lost in the shuffle and quietly "forgotten".

You and I see the "legislative duty" differently. As I see it, if the legislature did all that, "speeding to the statehouse to cast a vote and causes an accident which kills someone" he screwed up and the death of the individual takes precedence over the vote. Its up to the legislature to do what it takes to get there in time to vote. If he doesn't make it thats the legislatures fault. He knew when the vote is and its his/her job to get there on time. BTW I'd also love info when the congressmen are too drunk or otherwise indisposed to not make their vote and that info should be public record every time they miss a vote.

Now think about this. Next Nov someone is going to work a little late, gets a flat tire or what have you. Now he is driving like a mad man, high speed chase and cops in pursuit, to the polls so he can vote. When the cops finally catch him do you really think they are going to let him vote and reel him in later or more likely handcuff him and throw him in jail? A legislator should not be treated any differently.

Originally Posted by bonehead

I agree that the voter does need to know when a legislator runs afoul of the law. Unfortunately, all too many times the events get swept under the rug, lost in the shuffle and quietly "forgotten".

You and I see the "legislative duty" differently. As I see it, if the legislature did all that, "speeding to the statehouse to cast a vote and causes an accident which kills someone" he screwed up and the death of the individual takes precedence over the vote. Its up to the legislature to do what it takes to get there in time to vote. If he doesn't make it thats the legislatures fault. He knew when the vote is and its his/her job to get there on time. BTW I'd also love info when the congressmen are too drunk or otherwise indisposed to not make their vote and that info should be public record every time they miss a vote.

Now think about this. Next Nov someone is going to work a little late, gets a flat tire or what have you. Now he is driving like a mad man, high speed chase and cops in pursuit, to the polls so he can vote. When the cops finally catch him do you really think they are going to let him vote and reel him in later or more likely handcuff him and throw him in jail? A legislator should not be treated any differently.

I would agree with you except that a determined political force capable of devising a pretext to prevent a legislator from voting is not going to show his hand. It will likely come through some sort of police detention or delay. Even though the example of a speeding legislator killing someone in his rush to vote could be real, it could also be staged. If it is real then the police can escort the legislator to the statehouse to vote and arrest him afterwards.

As for knowing when a vote takes place, the time and even date of votes is not always known. Quorum calls may be sounded at any time. That's why the US Capitol building is connected to all the Congressional office buildings by underground subways. When the bell rings there is not much time to get to the floor. Often a member is out, maybe at home or at a meeting across town. He will race back unless the whip says his vote isn't needed.

I support immunity to prevent political mischief. I support disclosure of abuse of it so the voters can act. If a crime is really committed, then the legislator is arrested after he votes.