Yes and no. Article I, Section 6 of the Constiution immunizes senators and representatives from slander/libel claims “for any Speech or Debate in either House.”

Well, if you ignore the fact that the terms “Speech and Debate in either House” relate only to events specifically defined elsewhere in the Constitution. And then assume that whatever dolt who drafted this meant to write instead the words: “…communication of any sort and in any place,” but slipped his quill…

Then yeah, pretty much any aphasic, dyslexic, myopic and congenitally brain-damaged liberal would deem this a perfectly valid defense.

A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day……

Jesus! Did we really endow our legislators with such power?
Babs on November 19, 2007 at 7:22 PM

Yes and no. Article I, Section 6 of the Constiution immunizes senators and representatives from slander/libel claims “for any Speech or Debate in either House.” Which is fine, you really wouldn’t want to stifle debate in Congress. However, once they are outside of Congress, they are liable just like the rest of us.

In 1960 Congressman Adam Clayton Powell Jr. called a woman named Esther James all sorts of bad things in a speech in the House. She was not happy but he was protected. But then he went on and repeated the accusations on TV. She sued and he lost, eventually having to pay almost half a million dollars.

I don’t know if Murtha will win or lose on the merits of the case, but his constitutional argument is pretty weak.

Just another useless factoid.

I LOVE using the courts against libs. YES!

JiangxiDad on November 19, 2007 at 9:17 PM

Hoist them on their favourite petard.

Jesus! Did we really endow our legislators with such power?

Babs on November 19, 2007 at 7:22 PM

No. They gave it (immunity) to themselves.

“It’s nice to be the king.” – Mel Brooks

John Murtha is an ex-Marine.

Jesus! Did we really endow our legislators with such power?

Babs on November 19, 2007 at 7:22 PM

The Constitution MAY have.

From the WWW:

“CONGRESSIONAL IMMUNITY UNDER THE SPEECH AND DEBATE CLAUSE

To ensure free discussion of controversial issues in Congress, the framers immunized members of Congress from liability for statements made in House debate: for their “speech or debate” they “shall not be questioned in any other place.”"

There was probably such a long lineup of Clinton leftovers eager to defend Murtha that Bush just didn’t want to appear to be partisan and deny them the privilege.

Murtha’s remarks were made at a press conference and in subsequent TV interviews. There is absolutely nothing “legislative” about those activities.

Murtha wants Marines’ defamation suit tossed out

Of course he does. He doesn’t want to be forced to answer questions under oath in a court of law.

Teddy Roosevelt wrote in 1915, “…there has been a distinct degeneracy in the moral fiber of our people owing to…peace propaganda, a distinct increase in moral flabbiness,a distinct increase in hysteria and sentimental untruthfulness.”

Why is this liar Murtha not being indicted on charges of high treason for aiding an enemy in time of war?

Who actually votes for scum like Murtha?

volsense on November 19, 2007 at 7:42 PM

I think the employees of NDIC do…

That is the least he must do, unless he is decent enough to resign for being the coward he truly is.

logis on November 19,2007 at 8:13PM.

logis:What blows my mind,is the not quite clear thinking
of the left,when they,call their own citizen’s in
uniform, “Nazi’s”.I’ve watched President Bush,and
for the left to besmirch,and label him is outrageous.

For the Left,to paint the right,in this term “Nazi”,
the left track record isn’t to good,the left has to
answer,on American soil,Waco,Ruby ridge,and at gun
point(assult rifle,another phrase lib’s like)taking
at the time,the little Cuban boy,all those tactic’s
were used by the left,and the Liberal’s have the
nerve to use that label,Nazi.