If anyone else starts claiming immunity from subpoenas, we might as well scrap the entire judicial system.

We already have various journalists' associations claiming reporters can't be subpoenaed because of the First Amendment - and that even if they can, state shield laws protect them from having to give testimony.

Now we have members of Congress claiming they don't have to testify if they don't want to.

Brent Wilkes, the Poway resident at the heart of former Rep. Randall Cunningham's conviction for bribery, is currently facing trial over the allegations that he paid Cunningham to vote for contracts to be awarded to his company.

As part of his defense, Wilkes' attorney, celebrity lawyer Mark Geragos, had subpoenaed 12 members of Congress who served with Cunningham and/or allegedly had interaction of their own with Wilkes (tinyurl.com/2efcnvv).

Attorneys for the House of Representatives protested to U.S. District Judge Larry Alan Burns that the subpoenaed members should not have to testify, citing the Constitution's separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches.

Burns indicated he was leaning toward agreeing with that position and so earlier this week Geragos withdrew the subpoenas.

It says here that hizzoner got it wrong.

The Sixth Amendment is quite clear in spelling out a defendant's rights during a jury trial as guaranteed in Article III of the Constitution:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right … to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

There's nothing in there, or in subsequent amendments, that says "unless the witness be a member of Congress" (or newspaper reporter, for that matter).

If you have relevant testimony to give, you are required to give it by the highest authority in the land.

Period, end of argument.

The separation of powers at the heart of our system of government is important but has nothing to do with a criminal bribery case. All the separation principle involves is the notion that members of Congress can't be punished for how they vote.

That's key in keeping the nasty partisanship at work in society today from creeping into our courts. Without it, you can bet your bottom dollar that groups like MoveOn.org would be suing members of Congress who voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq.

But Cunningham isn't cooling his heels in the clink because of how he voted but because he took money to make those votes. And Wilkes is facing a long stretch in the slam for allegedly doing the bribing. Other members of Congress who may be able to shed light on his dealings with Cunningham are both morally and constitutionally obliged to provide such testimony as they can.

We don't have legally recognized classes in this country - our legal rights and obligations are common to all citizens and do not vary according to our social status or professional occupation.

Wilkes is the one whose rights should be paramount in this instance: He is the one who stands accused, and should Geragos follow through on his promise to introduce new subpoenas for members of Congress, Judge Burns should uphold them and compel said members to testify.

Or find them in contempt.

- Contact columnist Jim Trageser at (760) 631-6628 or jtrageser@nctimes.com.