Larry Craig digs deeper
Let me start by saying that Sen. Craig should not have resigned over his PeeWee Big Adventure in Minneapolis. That case should have been decided by Republican primary voters. Idaho is not Massachusetts, but voters there seem perfectly comfortable in returning Barney Frank to office, so who knows what they'd do in Brokeback Country? And if it was wrong to impeach Bill Clinton over sexually harassing his employees, it should be equally wrong to evict a senator for sexually harassing a plainclothes officer. If, as the Democrats claimed, it's "all about the BJ", then Craig is home free, since he didn't even get one. (Yes, I know, it was about lying under oath about a BJ, but let me accept the liberal argument here.) And if (per my gay friends) "a mouth is a mouth", then certainly he deserves the same legal protections.
Resigning over pusillanimity, on the other hand, sounds like a better idea every day. Now we have hints that Craig might not resign after all, because his lawyers say that his arrest was unconstitutional, as he was on his way to the Senate:
"The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They 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."
OK, so Article I/6 isn't the sexiest part of the Constitution, but Larry swore to uphold it. If he forgot that passage was in there, what other contents is he in ignorance of? And surely he either forgot or was ignorant, or he would have made that argument to Sgt. Karsnia. Moreover, since the Senate is ever mindful and protective of its prerogatives, it should be standing solidly behind him. The problem is that "Sen. Craig" wasn't arrested. Some pervert was arrested, who turned out to be Sen. Craig. The purpose of that bit of the Constitution was to keep the several states from mucking with the legislative process by arresting legislators who would vote contrary to its interests. There's no evidence that Karsnia had any intent to influence legislation. Now, it may be well to adopt an absolutist interpretation of I/6, given the number of trivial laws on the books that could be used to detain a legislator. But I don't think it would fly with the American people to let Craig off scot-free on I/6 grounds.
But the most pathetic statement is the claim from Craig's people that they are going to "clear his good name." This shows a real confusion between morals and law. It is now impossible to clear Craig's name. The only way to do that would to have been to prevail on the facts in a trial by jury. If he convinced a jury that he wasn't out for some cheap stress relief, his name would be cleared. Instead, he pled guilty, either because his name was unclearable or because he couldn't be bothered at that moment to clear it. This caused a change in venue to The Court of Public Opinion, which has so far greeted Craig's testimony with howls of derision. Even if acquitted on the Constitutional technicality, he would stand convicted of being a pervert and a coward, and somebody incapable of making a decision. OK, Larry, you resigned...so resign already, for the good of your party, the republic, and to save the last white crumb in the burnt toast of your career.
Comments
Posted by: James Quick
Posted on: September 9, 2007 08:24 PM
Some of us would consider soliciting strangers of either sex, in a public rest room to indeed be a breach of the peace. But then some of us are Conservative Libertarians instead of anarchists....Jiminny Quickon
Posted by: Jeffrey Quick
Posted on: September 9, 2007 08:44 PM
Funny, I encountered a particularly stupid argument that claimed that if a stall was private enough to crap in, it was private enough to have sex in. And another that the symbolic language was stylized enough that a come-on to a straight never would have happened, and that Craig was basically entrapped.
I rest on "generally accepted social mores" and on the intended use of the private property holder (i.e., not as a brothel). Some people get so wrapped up in theory that they lose contact with reality.