An Uncertain Privilege: Reexamining the Scope and Protections of the Speech or Debate Clause
The Speech or Debate Clause of the United States Constitution was put in place to protect and preserve the independence of the legislative branch. The United States Supreme Court has consistently read the Clause broadly to effectuate this purpose, and it has applied the Clause's protections abs...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Columbia journal of law and social problems 2017, Vol.50 (2), p.229 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 229 |
container_title | Columbia journal of law and social problems |
container_volume | 50 |
creator | Mayer, Philip |
description | The Speech or Debate Clause of the United States Constitution was put in place to protect and preserve the independence of the legislative branch. The United States Supreme Court has consistently read the Clause broadly to effectuate this purpose, and it has applied the Clause's protections absolutely to ensure that legislators are not questioned by a hostile executive or judiciary in regard to their legislative activities. In recent years, a circuit split has developed regarding whether the Clause provides for a documentary non-disclosure privilege, which would shield legislators from subpoenas or search warrants issued by the executive branch and enforced by the judiciary. The Ninth and Third Circuits have rejected such a documentary non-disclosure privilege, while the D.C. Circuit has consistently reaffirmed its commitment to a broad documentary non-disclosure privilege. Adding further uncertainty to the Clause's protections, the Ninth Circuit has also denied the Clause's protections to legislators involved in negotiations about future legislation. In order to provide clarity to the Clause's privileges, the Supreme Court should adopt a limited documentary non-disclosure privilege and should apply the Clause's protections to non-criminal negotiations in anticipation of future legislation. |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1873955589</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>4318395761</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-p183t-b2ac62ba48aa084f65d82eaca6672110ef0924cf8e2db864c7f77fc69fe136eb3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNotjc1KAzEYRbNQsFbfIeB6ID8zmcRdGX-hoKjdCeWbzJc2ZUzGJCM-voW6uotzOPeMLBjjrOJGyAtymfOBMSaNahbkcxXoJlhMBXygr8n_-BF3eEvfEH_hywcfdrTskb7bOCGFMBylWNAWH0Om0Z3ghGj3NCZ6hz0UpN0Ic8Yrcu5gzHj9v0uyebj_6J6q9cvjc7daVxPXslS9AKtED7UGYLp2qhm0QLCgVCs4Z-iYEbV1GsXQa1Xb1rWts8o45FJhL5fk5tSdUvyeMZftIc4pHC-3XLfSNE2jjfwDKEZOhg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1873955589</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>An Uncertain Privilege: Reexamining the Scope and Protections of the Speech or Debate Clause</title><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><creator>Mayer, Philip</creator><creatorcontrib>Mayer, Philip</creatorcontrib><description>The Speech or Debate Clause of the United States Constitution was put in place to protect and preserve the independence of the legislative branch. The United States Supreme Court has consistently read the Clause broadly to effectuate this purpose, and it has applied the Clause's protections absolutely to ensure that legislators are not questioned by a hostile executive or judiciary in regard to their legislative activities. In recent years, a circuit split has developed regarding whether the Clause provides for a documentary non-disclosure privilege, which would shield legislators from subpoenas or search warrants issued by the executive branch and enforced by the judiciary. The Ninth and Third Circuits have rejected such a documentary non-disclosure privilege, while the D.C. Circuit has consistently reaffirmed its commitment to a broad documentary non-disclosure privilege. Adding further uncertainty to the Clause's protections, the Ninth Circuit has also denied the Clause's protections to legislators involved in negotiations about future legislation. In order to provide clarity to the Clause's privileges, the Supreme Court should adopt a limited documentary non-disclosure privilege and should apply the Clause's protections to non-criminal negotiations in anticipation of future legislation.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0010-1923</identifier><identifier>CODEN: CJLSAQ</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems</publisher><subject>Bill of Rights-US ; Federal court decisions ; Jurisdiction ; Legislation ; Legislators ; Legislatures ; Prosecutions ; Search warrants ; Subpoenas ; Supreme Court decisions</subject><ispartof>Columbia journal of law and social problems, 2017, Vol.50 (2), p.229</ispartof><rights>Copyright Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems Winter 2017</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,4009</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Mayer, Philip</creatorcontrib><title>An Uncertain Privilege: Reexamining the Scope and Protections of the Speech or Debate Clause</title><title>Columbia journal of law and social problems</title><description>The Speech or Debate Clause of the United States Constitution was put in place to protect and preserve the independence of the legislative branch. The United States Supreme Court has consistently read the Clause broadly to effectuate this purpose, and it has applied the Clause's protections absolutely to ensure that legislators are not questioned by a hostile executive or judiciary in regard to their legislative activities. In recent years, a circuit split has developed regarding whether the Clause provides for a documentary non-disclosure privilege, which would shield legislators from subpoenas or search warrants issued by the executive branch and enforced by the judiciary. The Ninth and Third Circuits have rejected such a documentary non-disclosure privilege, while the D.C. Circuit has consistently reaffirmed its commitment to a broad documentary non-disclosure privilege. Adding further uncertainty to the Clause's protections, the Ninth Circuit has also denied the Clause's protections to legislators involved in negotiations about future legislation. In order to provide clarity to the Clause's privileges, the Supreme Court should adopt a limited documentary non-disclosure privilege and should apply the Clause's protections to non-criminal negotiations in anticipation of future legislation.</description><subject>Bill of Rights-US</subject><subject>Federal court decisions</subject><subject>Jurisdiction</subject><subject>Legislation</subject><subject>Legislators</subject><subject>Legislatures</subject><subject>Prosecutions</subject><subject>Search warrants</subject><subject>Subpoenas</subject><subject>Supreme Court decisions</subject><issn>0010-1923</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNotjc1KAzEYRbNQsFbfIeB6ID8zmcRdGX-hoKjdCeWbzJc2ZUzGJCM-voW6uotzOPeMLBjjrOJGyAtymfOBMSaNahbkcxXoJlhMBXygr8n_-BF3eEvfEH_hywcfdrTskb7bOCGFMBylWNAWH0Om0Z3ghGj3NCZ6hz0UpN0Ic8Yrcu5gzHj9v0uyebj_6J6q9cvjc7daVxPXslS9AKtED7UGYLp2qhm0QLCgVCs4Z-iYEbV1GsXQa1Xb1rWts8o45FJhL5fk5tSdUvyeMZftIc4pHC-3XLfSNE2jjfwDKEZOhg</recordid><startdate>2017</startdate><enddate>2017</enddate><creator>Mayer, Philip</creator><general>Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems</general><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4U-</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8AM</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGRYB</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K7.</scope><scope>M0O</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PADUT</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2017</creationdate><title>An Uncertain Privilege: Reexamining the Scope and Protections of the Speech or Debate Clause</title><author>Mayer, Philip</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-p183t-b2ac62ba48aa084f65d82eaca6672110ef0924cf8e2db864c7f77fc69fe136eb3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Bill of Rights-US</topic><topic>Federal court decisions</topic><topic>Jurisdiction</topic><topic>Legislation</topic><topic>Legislators</topic><topic>Legislatures</topic><topic>Prosecutions</topic><topic>Search warrants</topic><topic>Subpoenas</topic><topic>Supreme Court decisions</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Mayer, Philip</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>University Readers</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Criminal Justice Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Criminology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Criminal Justice (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Criminal Justice</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Research Library China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Columbia journal of law and social problems</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Mayer, Philip</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>An Uncertain Privilege: Reexamining the Scope and Protections of the Speech or Debate Clause</atitle><jtitle>Columbia journal of law and social problems</jtitle><date>2017</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>50</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>229</spage><pages>229-</pages><issn>0010-1923</issn><coden>CJLSAQ</coden><abstract>The Speech or Debate Clause of the United States Constitution was put in place to protect and preserve the independence of the legislative branch. The United States Supreme Court has consistently read the Clause broadly to effectuate this purpose, and it has applied the Clause's protections absolutely to ensure that legislators are not questioned by a hostile executive or judiciary in regard to their legislative activities. In recent years, a circuit split has developed regarding whether the Clause provides for a documentary non-disclosure privilege, which would shield legislators from subpoenas or search warrants issued by the executive branch and enforced by the judiciary. The Ninth and Third Circuits have rejected such a documentary non-disclosure privilege, while the D.C. Circuit has consistently reaffirmed its commitment to a broad documentary non-disclosure privilege. Adding further uncertainty to the Clause's protections, the Ninth Circuit has also denied the Clause's protections to legislators involved in negotiations about future legislation. In order to provide clarity to the Clause's privileges, the Supreme Court should adopt a limited documentary non-disclosure privilege and should apply the Clause's protections to non-criminal negotiations in anticipation of future legislation.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems</pub></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0010-1923 |
ispartof | Columbia journal of law and social problems, 2017, Vol.50 (2), p.229 |
issn | 0010-1923 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1873955589 |
source | Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; HeinOnline Law Journal Library |
subjects | Bill of Rights-US Federal court decisions Jurisdiction Legislation Legislators Legislatures Prosecutions Search warrants Subpoenas Supreme Court decisions |
title | An Uncertain Privilege: Reexamining the Scope and Protections of the Speech or Debate Clause |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-23T08%3A28%3A11IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=An%20Uncertain%20Privilege:%20Reexamining%20the%20Scope%20and%20Protections%20of%20the%20Speech%20or%20Debate%20Clause&rft.jtitle=Columbia%20journal%20of%20law%20and%20social%20problems&rft.au=Mayer,%20Philip&rft.date=2017&rft.volume=50&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=229&rft.pages=229-&rft.issn=0010-1923&rft.coden=CJLSAQ&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E4318395761%3C/proquest%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1873955589&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |