Posted on 12/03/2013 6:48:56 AM PST by oxcart
>> It’s how far do they extend today?
There has been no Amendment modifying or removing the authority of either house of Congress to enforce its subpoenas. Nor has any statute done so or could do so.
Then how come none of the links I gave you included enforcement responsibilities -- including arrest and detention -- as any longer within the Sgt at Arms' duties?
A simple reduction in budget would be sufficient to accomplish the practical effect.
The House ordered the arrest of Sam Houston “wherever to be found”
A statute can not modify or remove the authority of either house of Congress to enforce its rules or subpoenas, and there has been no Amendment to do so.
Can the veracity of any of the above be in doubt?
The entire matter of Houston’s assault on Stanbery is in the House Journal, beginning with Stanbery’s Saturday April 14 letter, the issuance of the arrest order that same day, the bringing of Houston before the House on Monday April 16 through to the Friday May 11 conviction and pronouncement of sentence on Monday May 14 (reprimand), all the while Houston was in the custody of the Sergeant at Arms who arrested him.
U.S. House Journal. 1832. 22nd Cong., 1st sess., 14 April.
http://www.memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28hj025102%29%29:
Ray, ol' buddy, ol' pal, would you please understand that I have not -- and will not -- take issue with this claim.
A statute can not modify or remove the authority of either house of Congress to enforce its rules or subpoenas, and there has been no Amendment to do so.
Can the veracity of any of the above be in doubt?
Nor have I argued otherwise.
But I have asserted that:
1. The House "jail" is no longer capable of handling overnight "guests" -- i.e., long-term detainees.
2. The House Sgt-at-Arms no longer has within his published job description the duty of enforcing any Congressional contempt citations beyond Capitol Hill.
Instead, apparently, the Sgt-at-Arms is merely called upon to ceremonially "produce" these miscreants for proceedings in the House -- to announce their presence and usher them to their place in any trial that might take place.
Because, some time ago, the House evidently decided to forego investing in the formal trial procedure specified for the so-called "inherent contempt" charges. This decision being logically based on a.) its distraction from the legislative process, b.) doubtless associated budget concerns and c.) confidence in the cooperation of the Executive Department providing enforcement and detention capability through the Department of Justice.
I glean all this from reading the material YOU have provided.
The only problem with all this is that "confidence in the cooperation of the Executive Department" has proven totally misplaced in the Obama administration. And, even while the Sgt-at-Arms may retain the authority to enforce the House's rulings, I gather that he no longer has the means to do so. Nor does the House have the will to so equip him.
*****************************************************
I'm now done with all this. I've made my point. Plus, I'm not terribly interested in the subject and the discussion has become tedious.
If you continue to believe that the authority and power of the Sgt-at-Arms remains unmodified and unimpeded by any legislative or practical considerations subsequent to 1832, well, that's your choice and no skin off my nose.
You base this on your links in post Post 76?
Sergeant-at-Arms Office
Sergeant-at-Arms, History
Sergeant-at-Arms, Duties
Those summaries can hardly be considered complete or authoritative. Additionally, the Supreme Court does not agree:
"The power of either House of Congress to punish for contempt was not impaired by the enactment in 1857 of the statute, Rev. St. § 102 (2 USCA § 192), making refusal to answer or to produce papers before either House, or one of its committees, a misdemeanor." Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125 (1935)
MacCracken was on several occasions held in custody by the Sargeant at Arms of the Senate. After MacCracken had been released and upon a new warrant being issued for his ignoring a subsequent subpoena, the Sargeant at Arms reported Feb. 12, 1934 that he went to MacCracken's place of business to arrest MacCracken but he was unable to locate him as MacCracken was in hiding. 73rd Cong., 78 Cong. Rec. 2410 (1934) https://archive.org/details/congressionalrec78aunit
Both houses of Congress have the power to enforce their subpoena. This power does not "end at the curb". This is not only sensible but is supported by history (Story's Commentaries) and by both Congressional and Court records.
Congress has the authority and duty to check a lawless Executive, they are prevented only by their cowardice. I pray to God for them have no fear, to do their duty, to have an iota of the resolve of the barefoot men at Valley Forge to fight tyranny, and while still possible to end by political means the deluge of lawlessness.
Pardon my saying, but you have a lot of "can't" in you. Is that you, John Boehner? Get out of the way.
Issa... the KING of INVESTIGATIONS that produce NO INDICTMENTS.
No, dammit, I won't pardon you. You insist on attributing motivations to me which I have not expressed.
You contend that the House Sergeant-at-Arms has the authority to arrest and detain Holder. I have not disputed that.
My contention has always been that the House Sergeant-at-Arms does not have the capability -- in terms of effective power and facilities -- to impose such an arrest and detention. Nor is there the Congressional will to afford him these powers and facilities.
You dispute my contention on the basis of actions that date to 1832 and 1935.
Accordingly, on the one hand, you are arguing a historical point that is not only not being disputed, but is not relevant to the original issue. And, on the other, you are failing to address a current point that is relevant to the original issue: Why doesn't the House simply order the Sgt-at-Arms to break into the DOJ and arrest Eric Holder?
I believe I know why. I've been trying to share that insight with you. You don't want to hear it. Which is not my problem.
Finally, I'm not in favor of the House's inaction, either -- never said I was -- so, please, don't accuse me of it.
Over and OUT.
I will quote you:
I believe the House Sergeant At Arms' authority to arrest and detain persons does not extend beyond the boundaries of Capitol Hill.I.e., he can't walk into the DOJ and handcuff the bastard.
At any rate, this case is dated 1935, when there actually was a detention facility in the capitol which the Sergeant at Arms could use to lodge detainees. The jail is still there -- but is no longer capable of handling overnight "guests".Consequently, the Congress must now rely on the DOJ to provide detention facilities. And I believe they must also rely on the DOJ to enforce their arrests away from Capitol Hill. See McDougal, Susan of Whitewater fame for a demonstration.
Generally, I agree with what you're saying (implying even). But I don't know quite what you would have the House do, given that the Sgt at Arm's arrest powers don't extend beyond the curb at Capitol Hill and, should Holder ever return there, they have no place to detain him should he be arrested.
Because Congress:1. No longer has the capability. Without the facilities or the staff to enforce its subpoena power, Congress willingly ceded these responsibilities to the DOJ (who, if I'm not mistaken, also serves their subpoenae). Which makes perfectly good senseI remain unconvinced on the breadth of the Sgt at Arms' authority. It would make perfect financial sense for Congress to cede the enforcement authority (outside the local realm) and detention responsibility to the DOJ. At least so long as there was mutual respect for the prerogatives of the co-equal branches of government.2. No longer has the will. On that we can agree.
But I have asserted that:1. The House "jail" is no longer capable of handling overnight "guests" -- i.e., long-term detainees.
2. The House Sgt-at-Arms no longer has within his published job description the duty of enforcing any Congressional contempt citations beyond Capitol Hill.
Instead, apparently, the Sgt-at-Arms is merely called upon to ceremonially "produce" these miscreants for proceedings in the House -- to announce their presence and usher them to their place in any trial that might take place.
Because, some time ago, the House evidently decided to forego investing in the formal trial procedure specified for the so-called "inherent contempt" charges. This decision being logically based on a.) its distraction from the legislative process, b.) doubtless associated budget concerns and c.) confidence in the cooperation of the Executive Department providing enforcement and detention capability through the Department of Justice.
Your argument rests upon an unsubstantiated claim that the Capitol jail is no longer "capable of handling overnight 'guests'" and that "Congress willingly ceded these responsibilities to the DOJ".
Congress has not ceded its power nor could it. I again direct your attention to the Supreme Court, the same case previously cited:
"We grant that Congress could not divest itself, or either of its houses, of the essential and inherent power to punish for contempt in cases to which the power of either house properly extended; but, because Congress, by the Act of 1857, sought to aid each of the houses in the discharge of its constitutional functions, it does not follow that any delegation of the power in each to punish for contempt was involved, and the statute is not open to objection on that account." Jurney v. MacCracken - 294 U.S. 125 (1935) http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/294/125/case.html
You proffer reason after reason why Congress can't arrest Holder, reasons based on assumptions and claims proven wrong - that friend is a whole lot of "can't"
Let’s focus our efforts on Congress bringing Holder & the rest of the lawless Executive to heel.
Join?
If you think that is our current state, why are you still here? Yes, the government is running roughshod over people; but they haven’t reached the point of killing sitting Senators. The real problem is that the corruption is on both sides of the aisle. None of them are honest and they fear what is coming once the house of cards comes down.
You tell me how a politican in Hitler’s Germany prior to the war could have investigated the SS and remained alive?
Same difference.
And as much indifference and fear as today.
______________________________
If you think that is our current state, why are you still here? Yes, the government is running roughshod over people; but they haven’t reached the point of killing sitting Senators. The real problem is that the corruption is on both sides of the aisle. None of them are honest and they fear what is coming once the house of cards comes down.
______________________________________________
Why am I here? Where am I going? Where can any of us go. People I know are leaving quietly if they can. I have commitments here. No sitting Senators are not being killed, yet.
You think that Nazi Germany or Rwanda or any other genocide sprung out of whole cloth? No, it takes time, too bad that there isn’t enough interest to stop it before it gets “too bad.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.