Nothing 'obscure' about this clause
RE "DRAIN the ethics cesspool" (Editorial, Nov. 13), which observed that House Speaker Salvatore "DiMasi is claiming legislative immunity in his refusal to provide records to the Ethics Commission on the
The obscure "speech and debate" clause has been the foundation of numerous speech and debate clause issues that have come before the US Supreme Court since 1810, when the first such case arrived there, and where the justices looked for guidance to an obscure 1808 case that arose in this state.
The "deliberation, speech, and debate" clause, Article 21 of our Declaration of Rights, is as sacred to legislators as the First Amendment is to newspapers. Indeed, in 1978 when the Supreme Court addressed the issue in US v. Helsinki, the court ruled that, "[t]he Clause protects against inquiry into acts that occur in the regular course of the legislative process and into the motivation for those acts. It precludes any showing of how a legislator acted, voted, or decided."
So, while some may take issue with the claim of immunity, it is grounded in constitutional law, and is as much a part of our constitutional heritage as any other right.
Speaker DiMasi not only has the right to invoke the constitutional privileges but he has the duty to invoke it as his constitutional oath requires.
CHESTER DARLING
PAUL WALKOWSKI
Dorchester 