At some point, hopefully one of them with enough information will walk on to the floor and exercise their Article I immunity.
I don't think they could. I'm no constitutional lawyer (I'm not even American), but someone pointed out on here recently that the clause says "[they] shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace [have immunity] for any Speech or Debate in either House" ... and since discussing classified secrets would count as a felony (possibly even Treason, given some of the opinions about this story), they could be prosecuted.
Is that incorrect?
In the UK, MPs could discuss state secrets in Parliament and be protected under Parliamentary Privilege, but not so in the USA, as I understand it.
The actual text is:
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.
The Speech or Debate clause has never been doubted to extend to anything a member may say on the floor of their house.
It says "except Felony". Releasing classified secrets is a felony. So it sounds like it means that a Senator who released classified secrets during a speech in the house would not be immune from prosecution for doing so.
Is that not how it has been interpreted? Do you have any examples?
Would a Senator be safe in discussing the classified details in the House? I notice that all have chosen not to. Would you say that's due to public pressure rather than the threat of prosecution, then?
The other part (the first part) of the statement merely states that they shall not be arrested while in either House (or going to and from either), unless their arrest is for Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace.
Gravel v. United States[1], a Supreme Court case from the 1970s related to Senator Mike Gravel reading the Pentagon Papers (classified material) into the Senate record, established this clearly:
"Rather, his insistence is that the Speech or Debate Clause at the very least protects him from criminal or civil liability and from questioning elsewhere than in the Senate, with respect to the events occurring at the subcommittee hearing at which the Pentagon Papers were introduced into the public record. To us this claim is incontrovertible.
[...]
We have no doubt that Senator Gravel may not be made to answer —either in terms of questions or in terms of defending himself from prosecution—for the events that occurred at the subcommittee meeting."
With regard to this:
> Would a Senator be safe in discussing the classified details in the House?
"House of Congress" and "House of Representatives" are two different things. "the House" generally refers to the latter. "Their House" refers to the House of Congress the member actually belongs to.
The clause is at least ambiguous on the question of whether a Senator has immunity in the House of Representatives, and whether a Representative has immunity in the Senate, but in this case it's unimportant. My hope is that a Senator will walk on to the floor of the Senate, or a Representative will walk on to the floor of the House of Representatives.
[1]http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2739100783028836...
+1 from me for a senator to disclose the government's lies, then, so there can be an informed debate about the costs and benefits of mass surveillance.
"They shall be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace.
[They shall be privileged from Arrest] in going to and returning from the [the Session of their respective Houses in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace].
For any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."
Any Senator disclosing classified details would be violating Senate rules which would then place him or her subject to action by the Senate itself.
There's only so much they can do, aside from blocking further access to classified information through official channels and stripping committee assignments.
Expelling requires a 2/3rds majority, which I doubt they'd get, and Powell v. McCormack established that Congress can't prevent the initial seating of a duly elected, constitutionally qualified member.
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. For any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
I for one hope he will be running for president soon.
Text taken from Wikipedia article
Article III, Section 3. This part of the Constitution strips Congress of the Parliamentary power of changing or modifying the law of treason by simple majority statute. It's not enough merely to think treasonously; there must be an overt act of making war or materially helping those at war with the United States. Accusations must be corroborated by at least two witnesses. Congress is a political body and political disagreements routinely encountered should never be considered as treason. This allows for nonviolent resistance to the government because opposition is not a life or death proposition. However, Congress does provide for other less subversive crimes and punishments such as conspiracy.[g]
That's an easy question: nobody. We're not at war with anyone.
The Congress thinks it's found an easy way around the ugliness of a formal declaration of war (e.g., the AUMF). But here's a wrinkle. If we haven't declared war, then we're clearly not at war in a legal sense. And thus, it can't trigger the treason definition.
The Supreme Court has long recognized that acts of Congress that have the effect of declaring war don't have to use any particular language.
It has also recognized that a declaration of war by Congress, whatever its form, is sufficient but not necessary to initiate a state of war, as war can be initiated by the other party attacking, declaring war, or by other means.
And that's kind of the point.
I assume as the exclusion for Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace is before the semicolon, it doesn't apply to the "they shall not be questioned in any other Place" after the semicolon.
I'd say the builders and enablers of an international secret totalitarian surveillance system are the ones guilty of treason. They are the traitors who should be on trial.