IP: Re: I find this outrageous!!

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:16:52 -0400
> From: Ray McFarland <rimcfar () lts ncsc mil>
> X-Accept-Language: en
> To: farber () cis upenn edu
> Subject: Re: IP: I find this outrageous!!
>
> Dave,
>
> Re: "Maybe if some senators get arrested we will get this fixed or would
> they get away with it"
>
> If you weren't aware, members of both houses of Congress are immune from
> arrest or prosecution when in the performance of their elected duties.
>
> Thus, I think in the 80s, a Representative caused an accident while
> driving drunk in a Md county, and caused injuries. The person could not
> be cited nor arrested because the claim was he was returning home from a
> Congressional function, and thus covered by Congressional immunity!!! So
> don't hold your breath on them getting arrested.
>
> If you weren't aware, Congress exempts themselves from a lot of laws
> that normal citizens, and in the Federal workplace, Federal workers
> (Members of Congress are also Federal employees) must follow. Example,
> none of the protections of even Federal workers, to my knowledge,
> applies to any Congressional staffer (would impinge on the rights of
> their managers - the Members of Congress).
>
> Ray
>
>
> Dave Farber wrote:
> >  I find this outrageous and think our congress should get off their rear
> >  ends and change the law or have we become a police state where police will
> >  stop and throw you in jail and then you fight it. Maybe if some senators
> >  get arrested we will get this fixed or would they get away with it.djf
> >
> >  April 24, 2001
> >
> >  Court Allows Arrest for Minor Violations
> >
> >  By DAVID STOUT
> >
> >  WASHINGTON, April 24 — In a decision that could affect drivers and police
> >  agencies across the country, the Supreme Court ruled today that the police
> >  can handcuff and arrest people even for minor offenses, like failure to use
> >  seat belts, which are normally punished by fines.
> >  I find this outrageous
> >  The Court ruled, 5 to 4, against a Texas woman who was arrested, handcuffed
> >  and taken to jail because she and her two small children were not buckled
> >  up in their pickup truck. The justices rejected her claim that her Fourth
> >  Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures had 
> > been violated.
> >
> >  <snip>
> >
> >  http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/24/national/24CND-SCOTUS.html
> >
> >  For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/