Politicians Above The Law: Exempt Or Not?

There is an ongoing debate about whether politicians can exempt themselves from the laws they pass. Critics argue that politicians are 'above their own laws' and point to specific instances where this has occurred, such as the exemption from the Healthcare Reform legislation. On the other hand, supporters of political exemptions argue that it is necessary to preserve the separation of executive and legislative powers. Additionally, certain laws, such as those requiring disclosure of personal financial interests, may interfere with the constitutional duties and functions of elected officials. There have been efforts to address this issue, such as the Congressional Accountability Act, which applies various civil rights, labor, and workplace safety regulations to the legislative branch.

US Congress members are exempt from certain laws

US Congress members are not entirely exempt from the laws they pass. However, there are certain laws and provisions from which they are exempt.

One example is the principal financial conflict of interest law for Federal employees, 18 U.S. Code 208, which prohibits officers and employees of the executive branch from taking official governmental action on any matter in which they have a personal financial interest. This statute does not apply to elected officials of the Federal Government, including Members of Congress, the President, the Vice President, and Federal judges. This exemption has been justified on the grounds that the law could interfere with their constitutional duties and functions.

Another example is the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, which allows individuals to access and request amendments to agency records pertaining to themselves. While this Act applies to agencies, there is no explicit or implied congressional exemption, and the Attorney General could previously request an independent counsel for investigations involving Members of Congress in cases of conflict of interest.

Additionally, Members of Congress are exempt from Section 205 of 18 U.S. Code, which prohibits certain outside, non-official activities, such as acting as an "agent or attorney" for private parties when this service is given more importance than service to the United States Government.

Furthermore, critics argue that Congress should be subject to the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). However, applying FOIA to Congress could potentially impinge on Congress' privilege regarding its papers and result in administrative burdens and lawsuits.

It is important to note that some of these exemptions may be outdated, as Congress passed the Congressional Accountability Act (PL 104-1) following the "Republican Revolution" of 1994, which applied various civil rights, labor, and workplace safety regulations to the legislative branch. Additionally, claims that Congress is exempt from "many" of the laws it passes date back to the 1980s, and Congress members have paid Social Security taxes since 1984.

The President, Vice President, and Federal judges are also exempt

In the United States, there is a degree of immunity granted to elected lawmakers to preserve the separation of executive and legislative powers. Under Article I, Section 6 of the U.S. Constitution, lawmakers are immune from arrest for anything other than treason, felony, or breach of the peace. This immunity also applies to any speeches or debates in either House of Congress.

However, this immunity does not extend to exempting politicians from all the laws they pass. In fact, in 1994, Congress passed the Congressional Accountability Act (PL 104-1), which applies a dozen civil rights, labor, and workplace safety regulations to the legislative branch. This Act was passed in response to news stories from the 1980s that criticized members of Congress for putting themselves "above their own laws."

That being said, there are still certain exemptions that members of Congress, the President, the Vice President, and Federal judges enjoy. For example, government officials are barred from participating in matters in which they have a personal financial interest, but this statute does not apply to elected officials of the Federal Government due to concerns about interference with their constitutional duties. Additionally, critics of congressional exemptions argue that Congress should be subject to the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

This is to avoid interference with constitutional duties

In the United States, there is a degree of separation between the executive and legislative powers. This means that elected lawmakers are given a certain degree of immunity from the laws they pass. This is to avoid interference with their constitutional duties and functions.

The U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 6, states that lawmakers are:

> "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."

However, this immunity does not extend to cases of treason, felony, or breach of the peace.

There have been criticisms of these exemptions, with some arguing that Congress should be subject to the same information disclosure requirements as the executive branch. Additionally, there are concerns about laws that exempt members of Congress from certain regulations, such as the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

To address these concerns, Congress passed the Congressional Accountability Act (PL 104-1) in 1994, which applied a dozen civil rights, labor, and workplace safety regulations to the legislative branch. This act was further amended in 1998 to include certain provisions of the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act.

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) does not apply to Congress

In the United States, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) gives the public the right to request access to records from any federal agency. However, FOIA does not apply to Congress, and there are several reasons for this exemption.

Firstly, applying FOIA to Congress could impinge on Congress' privilege regarding its papers and involve Congress in lawsuits filed by individuals appealing the denial of their FOIA requests. Secondly, not all congressional records would be subject to disclosure under FOIA due to the Act's nine exemptions, which include protecting personal privacy, national security, and law enforcement interests. Additionally, the FOIA requires agencies to proactively post certain categories of information online, which may not be feasible for all congressional records.

Furthermore, there are concerns about the potential interference of FOIA with the constitutional duties and functions of Congress. If members of Congress were required to recuse themselves from voting or working on legislation due to a conflict of interest, it could disenfranchise their entire constituency. This concern is similar to the issue of the President being forced to recuse himself from signing legislation, which has resulted in the President being exempt from FOIA.

While some critics argue that Congress should be subject to the same information disclosure requirements as the executive branch, others point out that Congress has taken steps to increase its accountability. For example, following the "Republican Revolution" of 1994, Congress passed the Congressional Accountability Act (PL 104-1), which applies various civil rights, labour, and workplace safety regulations to the legislative branch. Additionally, Congress created the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) as part of the OPEN Government Act of 2007, which amended FOIA to include mediation services for resolving disputes between requesters and agencies.

The 28th Amendment proposes equal application of laws

In the United States, the idea that politicians can be exempt from the laws they pass is not a new one. In the 1980s, news stories emerged claiming that members of Congress had put themselves "above their own laws". However, this notion has been largely discredited, with the Congressional Accountability Act (passed in 1994) applying a number of civil rights, labour, and workplace safety regulations to the legislative branch.

Despite this, critics of congressional exemptions point to laws that they believe should also apply to Congress, such as the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 is another example of a law that does not apply to elected federal officials, as it has been seen as possibly interfering with their constitutional duties and functions.

The 28th Amendment, which proposes that "Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States", aims to address this issue by ensuring that laws are applied equally to both citizens and politicians. This proposal has gained support from those who believe that the self-serving nature of politics needs to end, and that no one is above the law.

However, there are valid concerns about the practical implications of applying certain laws to Congress. For example, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) could impinge on Congress' privilege with regard to its papers, pose administrative burdens, and involve Congress in lawsuits filed by persons appealing the denial of their FOIA requests. Additionally, the US Constitution Article I, Section 6 grants lawmakers a certain degree of immunity to preserve the separation of executive and legislative powers.

Frequently asked questions