Legislative Immunity Quotes
Martin and other anti-Federalists argued against ratifying the new Constitution as they thought that it was inimical to the state’s interest. The notion of Federalism as a danger to states is clearly stated in this quotation for the debate on Constitutional ratification. Fundamentally, are Senators representatives of their states or of the Federal Government. If the former, who can the senators be recalled or impeached by the states to who the presumably owe their loyalty? This issue, like so many others, was compromised. The States would control the selection and method of selection of the Senators but could not recall or impeach. Looking back, we see this as logically inconsistent. However, looking at it as a political compromise between two legitimate points of view, it seems quite reasonable. Early America was a combination of idealism and pragmatism which has carried throughout American history.
This is the justification of virtually all legislatures that exempt their members from general requirements of law or grant them special privileges. Occasionally, the justification is warranted; most often, not.
This constitution was written 7 years before the national constitutional convention. It shows that there was concern about the separation of powers in United States even before the Constitution was drafted. See {616749} for an even clearer statement of the separation of powers principle. The national legislatures in Europe had commonly declared people traitors and in many cases incarcerated or executed them. This clause, effectively presaged the national constitution of 1787 where the Congress was prohibited from trying people for treason or anything else except impearchment.
This clause was a throwback to the days before the separation of powers where the legislature could imprison anyone they thought contemptuous or interfering with their deliberation. Contrast this with the earlier constitution of Massachusetts which forbade the legislature from acting as a judge or prosecutor. See {616750} and {616749}. Also this was a clear invasion of freedom of the press and freedom of speech provided by the Bill of Rights. However, at the time, it was not clear that the Federal Constitution was binding on State Governments on State Matters. Modern law is still ambiguous on this general point, but not on freedom of speech and the press which is currently definitely binding on the states.