Why aren't Congresspersons put under oath when in-session?

[Political Heretic]

Why aren't they under oath when in chambers? Why shouldn't it be that if a representative makes false statements in comments on the floor, that he or she could potentially face perjury charges?

I understand the fact that someone can accidentally make a mistake with facts, the same can happy in testimony under oath. Persons are often able to correct their testimony without facing perjury charges, but the potential to be charged is there when it comes to wanton lying and distortion of the facts.

Why shouldn't this be expected when members of congress speak on the house or senate floor?

(I understand "why" in today's climate, but I'm surprised it wasn't something that was established part of the rules long ago)

I also think that any public servant's oath of office, should carry perjury penalties, so that that public official would be accountable for all statements made in public (to the media, in print, on the house or senate floor, etc.) - and that charges of lying in public statements would be investigated with criminal charges possible.

People would still be free to give their opinions - they just couldn't make up statistics, or lie about data.

[mike_c]

1. because they lie habitually and would perjure themselves all day long...

...if they were under oath. :rofl:

[Cleita]

2. An oath to tell the truth would work for me.

We could make it a $500 fine for the first lie, twenty four hours in the clinker and a fine for the second lie and a full fledged investigation for possible perjury for the third lie. That should keep them fairly honest at least while on the floor.

[anigbrowl]

3. And who would enforce this?

truth is a slippery concept. It's better to respond to falsehoods by pointing out error instead of invoking some parental authority to decide every contested matter of fact. Most democratic countries have a concept of absolute parliamentary privilege - you're not under oath in the legislature, but neither can you be sued for libel or slander for anything you say on the legislature floor.

Time to grow up. Your proposal is basically a childlike wish for Teacher or someone to come in and straighten it all out. It will never happen, because political problems do not yield to simple technical solutions.

[Political Heretic]

6. Um excuse me, we enforce perjury all the time. I'm sure we can figure it out.

EDIT - to be clear. Of course this won't happen. I know this as much as you know this. So no need to call me names. But I do think its often interesting to reflect on the inconsistencies of our laws and how some classes are virtually exempt from serious accountability standards while other classes are held to them.

Perjury charges, by the way, are something enforced against poor and working class Americans all the time. It's only when you talk about a different, privileged, class that suddenly everything is "grey" and nothing can be enforced so we should all stop acting like "children" (as you say) and get over it.

That's what rich people or classists say to poor people and the working class all the time. "The law isn't made for you to avail yourself to - its made to be enforced against you and to be exempted for us."

That's the lesson of America today.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

11. Perjury occurs in a judicial context.

Congressional sessions are not a judicial context.

[Political Heretic]

12. I understand this, but people are put under oath before congress all the time.

So its not unreasonable to suggest that congress persons should be put under oath as well before carrying on business.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

13. Yes, it's completely unreasonable.

All it would do would be to ensure that nothing even remotely controversial was ever discussed.

[Political Heretic]

14. Yes, its unreasonable to expect people to tell the truth.

Work gets done all the time, by the way, in situations where pentaly of perjury exists.

so.... :)

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

19. How do you apply perjury rules...

...to a debate situation where 90% of what is discussed is either personal opinion or interpretation of data? It's NOT the same thing as a deposition where you are being asked factual questions about events.

Furthermore even if such a scheme were to be implemented it could always be circumvented by congresscritters prefacing every single thing they say with "In my opinion..."

Really, try proving that somebody lied about their opinion. This whole idea is useless and stupid.

[anigbrowl]

21. They are not comparable

Perjury relates to a set of very limited facts in a very narrow context. If I'm a Democrat in the Senate and James Inhofe gets up and blusters that global warming isn't an issue, well I can argue that he's bullshitting, but it's much harder to prove the objective truth or falsity of such statements.

That's what rich people or classists say to poor people and the working class all the time. "The law isn't made for you to avail yourself to - its made to be enforced against you and to be exempted for us."

Well, I suppose that's handier than dealing with the fact that Congress isn't like a court. Perhaps you can supply some examples of the kind of congressional perjury you are complaining about?

[Cirque du So-What]

4. I think it's implicit

due to the oath they swear upon taking office. For that reason, I believe they are subject to charges of perjury if they lie on the House or Senate floor.

[Political Heretic]

8. I don't believe that oath carries with it a penalty of perjury.

It does however allow for removal from office for failure of duty for some reason.

[Cirque du So-What]

18. You're right

and I know better. I meant to say that lying on the floor *should* be perjurous. Brain fart on my part.

[POAS]

5. After the first session

all further sessions would take place in a prison!

[Kaleva]

7. Who would enforce this?

Congress? Or maybe the Executive Branch which is tasked with enforcing laws?

[Political Heretic]

15. It's not realistic. I know this. But it points out another aspect of the absurdity of our system.

It's farcical in modern times. Yet we cling to it.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

9. Because then the only thing Congress would ever pass would be proclamations of...

...National Fuzzy Kittens Day and the like.

[baldguy]

10. Legislative immunity

[Bitwit1234]

16. I wish somebody with the money to do so would start

suing some of the Fox people and the republicans for lying. If I ever won the lottery that would be one of my first choices. And I would make sure the media told all about it.

You people should believe me when I say CNN pushes anything republican. Go look at their articles. Maybe the read all this in DU, I hope so.

[Davis_X_Machina]

20. Fox already won an SC case....

...establishing that there is no necessity for a broadcast outlet to actually tell the truth, unless the falsehood is defamatory, libelous, etc. Something being false, and it being broadcasted knowingly, isn't a cause of action.

[LostInAnomie]

17. You'll find that people are very resistant to the idea of regulating themselves.

Pretty much the same reason every other government employee gets drug tested except them.