Marine Requests Congressional Censure of John Murtha

Is a member of congress legally required to presume someone to be innocent?

 

When presiding over a trial, such as impeachment, I would presume that they would be. However, a congress member can say anything he wants but according to the Constitution the body of congress can discipline for whatever cause they see fit.

If the congressional body finds that this congressman was out of order in his statements about a U.S. soldier and accused him improperly (as it appears is the case), it is certainly within the congress' rights to censure him for that behavior. 'Tis a good rule of thumb for all people, including congressmen, to withhold judgment until the facts of matters have revealed themselves.

 

Rufus, Aren't you the same one who was arguing that a judge who made a comment at a luncheon (about a case that was not before him) was guilty of violating the constitutional right of innocent until proven guilty?

 

The judge was not guilty of a crime. My argument was that the judge's world view ran contrary to Constitutional principles. The same thing holds true for this congressman. Both the judge and the congressman are free to hold these views. The congress has the right to censure a congressman for whatever they desire as the Constitution provides for this. The judge's statements are not criminal unto themselves and I would not propose any action short of folks reminding him about the Constitution he swore to defend. However, once he makes decisions that run contrary to the Constitution, then the Congress has the duty to impeach him.

 

They may have duties and responsibilities, but most of the people on Capitol Hill are arrogant jerks and wind bags who think they are little gods and can do no wrong. Stern measures should be taken for defaming our soldiers in public and before the world. But I will be surprised if anything is done of a disciplinary nature, especially since Democrats are in the majority.

 

Thanks. And yes, he certainly should have been more thoughtful.

I don't see what the person's occupation has to do with it. It's either morally wrong to potentially prejudice the public and/or courts, or it's not.

 

I would send Murtha a package of duct tape for his mouth.

 

Sorry for being unclear. Clearly there is a very significant difference between the opinions of you and I and those of an elected official. I was referring to the occupation of the Marine.

If an elected official has a duty not to unduly influence the public presumption of innocence (which I've yet to decide if I agree with), then clearly it applies to this case. If, however, no such general duty exists, then I see no real basis for insisting on the existence of such a duty in the specific context of members of the military.

 

He should already have duct tape if he followed Homeland Security protocols for protecting himself. He should have some plastic sheeting you can encourage him to wrap somewhere as well.

 

No worries, but I'm wondering how you defend such special consideration on a moral basis.

 

The way I read this article, this marine is accused of a war crime. Why do you say he's obviously innocent. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt until after the trial but I can't really say based on what I've read whether he is innocent or guilty.

 

Sure he did, but almost everything politicians do is to make a partisan political point. Now, I absolutely agree with you that this is utterly deplorable, but if you start demanding a censure on that basis congress isn't going to have the time to do anything else.

 

I hope the people of Penn. vote this embarrassment out. But.........