Posted on 10/04/2023 10:19:15 AM PDT by 7thOF7th
If DJT is appointed Speaker, will he hold subpoena power?
He would have all the powers the Speaker of the House has (plus an attitude).
Does it even matter? If someone ignores a subpoena from any Republican committee or Speaker, is there even a chance in hell that the Biden DOJ would prosecute the case?
and the power to jail people who do not answer questions after being subpoenaed
This is a discussion about fascinating fiction like us Generation X programmers decades ago when TV was making Star Trek: The Next Generation and after a new episode we'd say things like, "But if real life we could change the fold of space-time...".
True.
But, it would be epic if he subpoena’d himself and then testified for a couple of hours.
If we had a speaker that wasn’t a wuss, they would not need to rely on the DOJ to force compliance. Congress has all the power it needs on its own to get people to comply with subpoenas.
But Trump won’t be speaker, and I doubt anyone with cojones will be.
Yep, it’s fantasy wish fulfillment stuff, not reality.
In all seriousness, perhaps it’s healthy to discuss a Speaker Trump to send a message that whoever becomes Speaker should have Trump’s no-nonsense qualities.
It looks as though the Speaker may have a say in who has subpoena power.
Has there ever been a speaker who was not an elected member of the house?
If Donald Trump were to be elected Speaker of the House of Representatives while simultaneously facing ongoing legal cases, it could potentially create a significant conflict of interest and raise constitutional and ethical questions. Here’s how such a scenario might play out:
1. **Subpoena Power**: As Speaker of the House, Donald Trump would have the authority to issue subpoenas on behalf of the House of Representatives. This could be problematic if he uses that power to target individuals or entities involved in his ongoing legal cases, such as investigations or lawsuits.
2. **Conflict of Interest**: The conflict of interest arises because the Speaker’s role is supposed to be impartial and focused on legislative matters. Using the subpoena power to further personal legal interests could undermine the integrity of the office.
3. **Separation of Powers**: The U.S. Constitution is designed with a separation of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. If the Speaker of the House, who is a legislative branch official, is perceived to be using his position to influence or interfere with the judicial process or investigations, it could be seen as a violation of this separation.
4. **Ethical Concerns**: Such a scenario could raise ethical concerns and potentially lead to investigations or calls for ethical inquiries by congressional ethics committees.
5. **Political Ramifications**: The election of a former President as Speaker would also carry significant political ramifications, given his previous role as President and his ongoing political influence.
It’s important to note that this scenario is highly unusual and has not occurred in modern U.S. political history. The Speaker of the House is typically a member of the House of Representatives and is elected by their peers. However, constitutional and legal scholars would likely debate the implications and consequences of such a situation if it were to arise.
Ultimately, the specifics of how this scenario would unfold and any legal or constitutional challenges that might arise would depend on various factors, including the circumstances, the actions taken by the Speaker, and the reactions of other branches of government and political institutions.
Anyone that displays many Trump-like qualities is not likely to get 20 votes though. The best we can probably hope for is someone of principle who shares Trump’s goals, but who has a completely different personality and image. Someone the superficial types might be able to accept.
I doubt he’d win the vote anyway.
Excuse me, but you have to actually be voted into the house of representatives to be considered for the speaker guy thing.
YES HE WOULD
“U.S. CODE
TITLE 2—THE CONGRESS
CHAPTER 6—CONGRESSIONAL AND COMMITTEE PROCEDURE; INVESTIGATIONS
Sec. 193. Privilege of witnesses
No witness is privileged to refuse to testify to any fact, or to produce any paper, respecting which he shall be examined by either House of Congress, or by any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or by any committee of either House, upon the ground that his testimony to such fact or his production of such paper may tend to disgrace him or otherwise render him infamous.”
Simply look up Hinds Precedents, especially chapters 53 and 51, and Cannon’s Precedents, especially chapters 184-185. You’ll find numerous detailed cases of Congress asserting its power, arresting people, holding them until they agreed to answer questions, and then releasing them. Some of these people did not refuse to appear, but simply failed to satisfactorily answer questions.
Congress has the authority to arrest and imprison those found in Contempt. 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/
In 1857, a New York Times reporter refused to say which members of Congress had asked him to get them bribes (protecting his “sources” just as various Judith Millers today protect the people who feed them proven lies that costs thousands of lives), so Congress locked him up until he answered and then banned him from Congress.
In 1924 an oil executive appeared but refused to answer certain questions, so the Senate held — literally held — him in contempt. Senator Thomas Walsh of Montana argued that this question of contempt was of the gravest importance, and that it involved “the very life of the effective existence of the House of Representatives of the United States and of the Senate of the United States.” The matter was taken to court, and the witness fined and imprisoned.
The fact that no-one who’s all the way with Trump can name a single person they’d like to see besides Trump become Speaker of the House is reason #1 I’d rather see someone else: he has made sure that his is a one-person revolution, a cult of personality rather than a movement of ideology. Anyone else who forms any authority independent of his is the enemy, and he will make certain every one of his followers hates that enemy above all else.
These all boil down to “Oh no! It could damage the Speaker’s reputation as an impartial, non-partisan, pure-hearted leader!”
All irrelevant as DJT doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of being elected SOTH.
It makes me smile at the thought of Speaker Trump ordering the arrest of Letitia James and her hack judge Engoron if they refused to testify. So many names, so many smiles.
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.