Posted on 07/11/2014 7:13:47 AM PDT by PoloSec
Texas Republican Rep. Steve Stockman filed a resolution calling for the arrest of former IRS official Lois Lerner over the Internal Revenue Service nonprofit targeting scandal Thursday.
Lerner, alongside the IRS, are under investigation for unfairly scrutinizing conservative nonprofits for tax-exempt status.
“Asking the Justice Department to prosecute Lois Lerner for admittedly illegal activity is a joke,” Stockman said. “The Obama administration will not prosecute the Obama administration. How much longer will the House allow itself to be mocked? It is up to this House to uphold the rule of law and hold accountable those who illegally targeted American citizens for simply having different ideas than the President.” (RELATED: Lerner Warned Colleagues In 2013: Congress Will Ask For Our Emails)
Stockman’s resolution instructs the House’s Sergeant at Arms — its chief law enforcement officer — to arrest Lerner on charges of contempt of Congress. The Sergeant at Arms is directed by the House speaker, currently Ohio Republican John Boehner.
The House voted to hold Lerner in contempt for refusing to testify before Congress in May by a vote of 231-187. (RELATED: Lerner Did Print Out ‘Some’ Emails, After All)
Congress does have the power to arrest individuals held in contempt — a fact recently referenced by the popular show “House of Cards,” when the Senate Sergeant at Arms was directed to arrest absent senators. The power is, however, used very rarely.
Stockman’s resolution accuses Lerner of “refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena duly issued by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, thereby obstructing the Congress in the lawful exercise of its constitutionally mandated legislative powers,” calling her behavior “an insult to the dignity of the House of Representatives [and] an attack upon the integrity of its proceedings, [which] works violence upon the rights of the House collectively, and therefore implicates the long-recognized inherent power of the House to punish and commit for contempt, privileged under the Constitution.”
If arrested, Lerner “shall enjoy no special privileges beyond those extended to her fellow inmates, shall not access any computer or telephone, and shall not be visited by anyone other than her counsel, clergy, physician, or family.”
In the examples you cite there are legal protections, appeal rights, laws and other checks and balances. Having congress become a police force even to inforce laws is a mistake because motives are purely political not legal.
The last thing conservatives should want is to get on bandwagon to set precedent for federal government to assume more control and more enforcement ability. Don’t forget that congress is the IRS. They control the purse, the laws and have oversight. Let’s not give congress a reason to expand their reach by pretending they are separate from the IRS.
Subject to fine parsing, Butter.
But even slime can melt under extreme heat
"Slime?" You are too kind. Team RINO has gone into an all-out prevent defense.They are spending millions from their inexhaustible war chest, buying Negro Democrats willy-nilly to win any annoying primary challenges from the Right.
Of course, they will lose a few in the real election, but so what. Gotta work with the Democrats to keep the swag rolling in
There is no requirement that Lerner show up on the floor of the House.
If the Resolution is adopted I see no way for the Speaker not to do as directed by the Resolution.
Congress’ authority to arrest and imprison those found in Contempt is well established and confirmed by the Supreme Court.
The power extends throughout the United States and is an inherent power (does not depend upon legislated act)
If found in Contempt the person can be arrested under a warrant of the Speaker of the House of Representatives or President of the Senate, by the respective Sergeant at Arms.
Statutory criminal contempt is an alternative to inherent contempt.
Under the inherent contempt power Congress may imprison a person for a specific period of time or an indefinite period of time, except a person imprisoned by the House of Representatives may not be imprisoned beyond adjournment of a session of Congress.
Imprisonment may be coercive or punitive.
Some references
[1] Joseph Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution, Volume 2, § 842
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/print_documents/a1_5s21.html
[2] Anderson v. Dunn - 19 U.S. 204 - “And, as to the distance to which the process might reach, it is very clear that there exists no reason for confining its operation to the limits of the District of Columbia; after passing those limits, we know no bounds that can be prescribed to its range but those of the United States.”
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/19/204/case.html
[3] Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/294/125/case.html
73rd Cong., 78 Cong. Rec. 2410 (1934)
https://archive.org/details/congressionalrec78aunit
[4] McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 - Under a warrant issued by the President of the Senate the Deputy to the Senate Sergeant at Arms arrested at Cincinnati, Ohio, Mally S. Daugherty, who had been twice subpoenaed by the Senate and twice failed to appear.
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/273/135/case.html
[5] Rules of the House of Representatives, Rule IV Duties of the Sergeant at Arms - [] execute the commands of the House, and all processes issued by authority thereof, directed to him by the Speaker.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/HMAN-105/pdf/HMAN-105-pg348.pdf
[6] An analysis of Congressional inquiry, subpoena, and enforcement
http://www.constitutionproject.org/documents/when-congress-comes-calling-a-primer-on-the-principles-practices-and-pragmatics-of-legislative-inquiry/
Instead all the enforcement powers - to force the GOVERNMENT to be accountable - is to be concentrated in one Attorney General?
Exactly what is the check on the executive, in that scenario? He appoints the top cop who does legal CYA for all the crimes his regime commits, and everybody else has to sit there and take it? The executive sends people to Congressional investigations and p!sses all over the truth and all over we the people’s representatives and then laughs all the way to the bank, and nobody can do a dang thing?
That is a recipe for revolution, right there. It’s exactly what got us the first revolution.
This is a very specific, narrow resolution to force the Speaker to do what he is Constitutionally allowed to do - to enforce CONGRESS’ subpoenas. If one of us little people lied to Congress we’d be nailed. Would you be against that?
Just like everything else the past 6 years, neither will happen.
The remedy is impeachment. The house has the ability to impeach federal officials who are not doing there job, namely the attorney general. Lerner is merely the patsy and congress is the willing accomplice. Congress has the ability to investigate but it chooses not to and feigns its inability.
Getting conservatives on board for having government expand its power is simply nuts and I’m surprised some of us are taking for it.
Studies have shown that lab rats will stop trying to exit a door when it’s been closed to them before - even when the door is left open. They condition themselves to believe that the door is forever shut.
Me, I’m a cow. A cow will go through the fence any time it’s open and if it’s not open it will go OVER the fence if what’s on the other side is worth it.
I believe the rule of law is worth it.
And doors ARE opening. You would not BELIEVE how many things that weren’t supposed to be able to happen are actually happening but nobody has had a chance to find out about it yet.
Obama is desperate. He is showing his fangs too early - before we’ve all been subjugated. Unless we’ve given up. Have we given up? Are we going to go out with a whimper, or stand up and fight for all we hold dear?
This isn’t really about Obama OR about the corruptocrats in DC. It’s about us - whether we have given up on liberty, or whether we still care enough to fight. We’re down, we’re depressed. But the first step out of that is to JUST DO IT. Don’t feel like taking a walk? Do it anyway! Don’t feel like making supper? See your kids sitting there hungry and do it anyway. Don’t want to get your hopes up for the future? Plant a tree anyway. Somebody asked Martin Luther what he would do if he knew the world was ending the next day. He said he’d plant a tree. We have to keep living until we’re dead.
Are we dead already?
You don’t seem to be listening. The House ALREADY has this power. The CONSTITUTION gives this power, as part of the overall system of checks and balances. When you take any of those checks out it creates an imbalance. Do you really want to take that check/power out of the Constitution without actually amending the Constitution? And you want us to believe that is conservative or Constitutional?
Why are you so afraid of the House being able to jail somebody for refusing their subpoenas? Scooter Libby was already jailed for a crime he didn’t do, and Clinton was already not jailed for a crime he did - all without the House being involved at all. So if you’re afraid that injustice will be done by Congress, the mechanisms are already there and have been in place for a long, long time. What is the House going to do that the Senate hasn’t already done?
Obama can already arrest and jail/detain any of us for whatever trumped-up reason he wants, without ANY due process, disclosure, charges - anything. He is the colon bacteria that is always BAD. Bad colon bacteria gets that kind of power in one way: the good bacteria gets killed/weakened. The whole point of checks and balances is to have factions of government at each others’ necks. That constant struggle keeps ANY of them from overgrowing itself.
All it takes to destroy the checks and balances is for ONE branch to be weakened. When that happens it is a GIVEN that the bad bacteria will take over the place and will GROW THE GOVERNMENT. It will take over all the other parts of government and, unchecked, it will grow to impossible proportions.
IOW, if you really want to stop the growth and intrusiveness of government as a whole, you HAVE to grow the branch that has been weakened beyond the ability to check the other branches.
Impeachment is to remove a person from office, not to put them in jail. And Lois Lerner can’t be impeached; she’s already collecting her for-life pension.
Lois is currently a private citizen. Congress should refrain from excercizing power over private citizens when its true gripe is with a federal official who refuses to comply with duty to enforce current laws.
Federal Marshals?
Secret Service Agents?
FBI?
Treasury?
If Holder holds back, what happens to the warrant? Go ahead. Vote. But if Lerner turns into a Fugitive Martyr and Reggie's Boyfriend backs her up, then waddawe do?
Read the material linked to in post 44
Holder has nothing to do with this. The House Sergeant at Arms or his Deputy will locate, arrest, and imprison Lerner as directed.
Novel in a contemporary sense only.
Congress' power to act in this fashion is enshrined in the Constitution as arrest for "inherent contempt". And, at one time, such proceedings were not uncommon.
However, the power has not been exercised since 1934.
In Jurney v. MacCracken, MacCracken was subpoenaed duces tecum. He destroyed papers to prevent their production. Lerner’s conduct is similar.
Assuming the Republicans retain the House majority, it's (regrettably) unlikely that Boehner will be replaced, unless there is some medical issue or unless he voluntarily resigns from the Speaker position under other circumstances.
Merely resigning from a previous federal position, in which while serving one committed a crime, does not insulate a person from prosecution for that crime. And if that crime was specifically contempt of Congress, there is precedent for arrest of such person by the House sergeant at arms.
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.