First, it is undisputed that this sense of Congress resolution has no legal effect. In fact if it had legal effect, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit would not be able to recover attorneys' fees, which is just the opposite of what the sponsors of this resolution would have us do. If we want to debate what should be the personal responsibility of someone who is employed by the government, then we should have on the floor legislation, generic legislation, the way we normally would take up bills, not aimed at one person or a personality, but aimed at whether this is good public policy or not. And then we would debate that issue and come to some resolution. I assume that we would have an opportunity to amend that particular bill, and we would have an open and full debate. But instead we are working on a resolution that has no meaning, that does not do what the sponsors claim it does, that, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) pointed out, it cannot have any effect. And if it did, we would have to amend the underlying law.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the legal implications and effectiveness of a sense of Congress resolution.
Share
More from Ben Cardin
there is no reason why somebody should be sanctioned in America and not in Europe or not in the U.K.
section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may…
section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may…
I come to the floor today to celebrate the 175th anniversary of diplomatic relations between Guatemala and the United States. As we mark this milestone, I want to highlight the strength of the U.S.-Guatemala bilateral relationship today…





