By Kathleen Hunter, CQ Staff

Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens has asked a federal judge to consider three different constituional arguments for throwing out the case against him.

Lawyers for Stevens, the Senate’s longest-serving Republican, contend the charges of hiding gifts from public disclosure run afoul of the Constitution’s “speech or debate” clause, intended to shield legislative activities from executive review.

Stevens is set to stand trial Sept. 24 in federal court on seven felony charges that he made false statements on his Senate financial disclosure forms over a period of seven years.

The indictment accuses Stevens of concealing gifts he received from employees of oil-services company VECO Corp., and alleges that VECO employees solicited Stevens for favors he could supply in his official capacity as a senator.

“These allegations apparently involve Sen. Stevens’ legislative actions, votes and decisions,” the defense lawyers wrote in a brief filed Thursday. “The indictment alleges a series of official acts that, on their face, appear to fall within the protections of the [‘speech or debate’] clause.”

In addition, Stevens’ lawyers argued that the indictment is based on privileged grand jury testimony of current and former staffers, some of which was delivered indirectly through the testimony of, and that the staffers’ testimony should not have been allowed under the “speech or debate” clause.

Lawmakers facing legal trouble, most notably Rep. William J. Jefferson , D-La., who faces federal corruption and bribery charges, recently have made a practice of seeking shelter behind that part of the Constitution, with varying degrees of success.

Beyond the “speech or debate” clause, Stevens lawyers made two other constitutional arguments in motions filed Thursday: One motion argues that the indictment should be found invalid because it violates the “separation of powers” doctrine. The other says the indictment failed to provide adequate detail about what Stevens should have disclosed on the forms required of all members of Congress.

“Only the Senate may discipline a senator for violating the Senate’s rules, and Congress cannot delegate that authority to the Executive Branch,” Stevens’ attorneys wrote.

The indictment accuses Stevens of violating a law (PL 95-521), not a Senate rule.

The defense attorneys petitioned U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan to throw out the case on each of those grounds.

The Dismissal Motions

Stevens, who faces a tough re-election fight this year as he seeks a seventh full term, also wants Sullivan to dismiss the first count against him, arguing that it is redundant with the other charges and that it deals with conduct that occurred before May 9, 2002, an agreed upon statute of limitations date.