« Bruce Bartlett Is Blogging at the Arena | Main | Spinning the Wheels »

November 15, 2008

Senatorial privilege:

U.S. Constitution: Article I: [Senators and Representatives] shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

Makes me think that as soon as the Senate ceases its session, the Georgia courts can throw Saxby in jail for contempt and keep him there until the Senate comes back into session, no?

Alice Massini:

Chambliss Refusing to Speak in Imperial Sugar Case: News Three was the first to tell you Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss had been subpoenaed by Savannah Attorney Mark Tate in the case against Imperial Sugar. Tate, who represents families of the deceased, subpoenaed Chambliss because he believes Chambliss has pertinent information for the case. In a News Three follow-up, we've gotten word that Chambliss' lawyer is moving to quash the subpoena. Tate says attorneys for Chambliss claim he has immunity because he's a U.S. Senator. "Our clients have said to reporters that they have felt like he was trying to influence them and dissuade them from filing lawsuits. That's the kind of activity a U.S. Senator does not enjoy privilege to conduct," explains Tate. We were unable to reach Senator Chambliss' Office for comment. We will continue to follow this story and bring you the latest.

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Is the case inb state court? if so, I'm not so sure that the Seator is immune even while congress is in session.

Is the case inb state court? if so, I'm not so sure that the Seator is immune even while congress is in session.

Is the case inb state court? if so, I'm not so sure that the Seator is immune even while congress is in session.

Article I Section 6 immunity from arrest only applies to arrests made in connection with civil suits. It doesn't confer immunity to service of process (see, e.g., Long v. Ansell, 293 U.S. 76 (1934)).

However, I suspect that Chambliss is arguing that his contacts with Imperial Sugar were in the course of Senate business and he is thus protected by the Speech and Debate Clause (see, e.g., Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606 (1972)). However, note that, under Gravel, any communications sought by opposing counsel that were not in direct furtherance of Congressional business could be discoverable. If that's his theory of the case, Chambliss has an argument (and a pretty good one), but it's not bulletproof.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search Brad DeLong's Website

  •  

A Rising Sun

  • "I now know it is a rising, not a setting, sun" --Benjamin Franklin, 1787

Graphs

  • Global Warming
    Matthew Yglesias » Yes, The World is Really Getting Warmer
  • The U.S. Federal Budget Deficit
  • Modern Economic Growth Is a Historically Recent Phenomenon
    20090604 issuu Slouching.VI.doc
  • Escape from Malthusland
    20090604 issuu Slouching.VI.doc
  • The TED Spread Normalizes
  • Recovery in the 1930s
    Path Finder
  • Stock Market: The Graham Ratio
    Path Finder
  • Employment-to-Population
    Path Finder
  • GDP Growth
    Path Finder

From Brad DeLong

Egregious Moderation