President Trump violates the US Constitution Article 1, Section 6, Clause 1 Against Reps. Omar and Tlaib

APACHE JUNCTION AZ (IFS) -- The President of the United States continues to place our Congresswomen in harm's way by saying and tweeting hateful speech against our representatives. He is actively placing these women in the cross-hairs of a violent Trump supporter. It's only a matter of time as Trump keeps giving ammunition to these hate fill followers that will cultivate into bloodshed -- on both sides. If the average family had a member that spoke and acted as President Trump, they would be placed on a 72-hour medical hold for danger to himself and others. -KHS

Israel says it will bar two U.S. congresswomen from entering the country. At President Trump's urging, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reversed his earlier decision to allow Reps. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, both Muslims critical of Israeli policies, to visit. Amna Nawaz talks to Danny Ayalon, former Israeli ambassador to the U.S., and Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif.

The Speech or Debate Clause is a clause in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1). The clause states that members of both Houses of Congress

...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 from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

The intended purpose is to prevent a President or other officials of the executive branch from having members arrested on a pretext to prevent them from voting a certain way or otherwise taking actions with which the President might disagree.

A similar clause in many state constitutions protects members of state legislatures in the United States. Legislators in non-U.S. jurisdictions may be protected by a similar doctrine of parliamentary immunity.

This article is part of a series on the
Constitution of the United States of America
Preamble and Articles of the Constitution
Preamble I II III IV V VI VII
Amendments to the Constitution
Bill of Rights I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV XVI XVII XVIII XIX XX XXI XXII XXIII XXIV XXV XXVI XXVII
Unratified Amendments
Congressional Apportionment Titles of Nobility Corwin Child Labor Equal Rights D.C. Voting Rights
History
Drafting and ratification timeline Convention Signing Federalism Republicanism
Full text of the Constitution and Amendments
Preamble and Articles I–VII Amendments I–X Amendments XI–XXVII Unratified Amendments
United States portal U.S. Government portal Law portal

Wuterich v. Murtha: defamation actions arising from comments made in a legislative role

In August 2006, U.S. Representative John Murtha was sued by U.S. Marine Corps Staff Sergeant Frank D. Wuterich, overstatements that Murtha had made to reporters about the Haditha massacre,  an incident in Haditha, Iraq in which 24 civilians were killed after U.S. troops under Wuterich, a squad leader, opened fire.  (Wuterich was later court-martialed, and pleaded guilty to one count of negligent dereliction of duty in connection with the Haditha killings in a plea agreement with military prosecutors.)

In his 2006 complaint, Wuterich sued Murtha, alleging that the congressman's comments to the press that the Haditha killings constituted "cold-blooded murder and war crimes" were defamatory and an invasion of privacy. The remarks were made at a press conference and in a follow-up television interview.  Wuterich also sought to compel Murtha to sit for a deposition in the civil case.

In 2007, U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer ruled that Murtha must testify in the defamation case; in response, commentators expressed concern that Murtha was acting as a lawmaker and was therefore protected by the Speech or Debate Clause. Murtha appealed, arguing that he had immunity from the lawsuit because he was acting in his legislative role by making the comments. In 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Murtha's favor, accepting his argument that he was acting in an official capacity, concluding that he was immune from suit, and ordering dismissal of the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. This decision was based not on the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution, but on the Westfall Act, a federal statute that "accords federal employees absolute immunity from common-law tort claims arising out of acts they undertake in the course of their official duties."