Reading the CRS description of the Speech or Debate clause privilege (linked in the last entry) strikes me as a great example of why this privilege is so important.
A member’s office was raided, and a case goes to the courts to decide the boundaries of legislative independence. Members are interested, and need to know about how this clause is interpreted in order to legislate with full knowledge of what’s going on. Insofar as this relates to legislating, CRS can provide background (while the Office of Legislative Counsel would be the ones providing legal, read non-legislative, advice to members.)
This is where things get complicated.
An analyst is researching background for members of Congress, working at CRS. The analyst is looking into the exact ways in which performing one’s legislative duties happens without needing to fear that you’ll later be subpoenaed based on your legislative work.
If this clause didn’t exist, the CRS analyst could be subject to a subpoena, which would mean that the research’s content (under what circumstances are we in Congress immune from subpoena and testifying) would start to determine the effect of the research. If the analyst doesn’t assert Congress’s independence, they logically cede their objectivity in the matter to the circumstance of being answerable to the courts.
Independence in the legislature (as with all branches) is absolutely necessary, and a pure test case is this one, where research on the independence of the legislature, as performed by the legislature, must itself be independent, or else become legally functional, introducing a conflict of interest.
Make a Suggestion
0 responses so far ↓
There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.
Leave a Comment