No, but Article II grants only executive powers to the executive branch, and Article III grants judicial powers to the judicial branch, and emphasized that those exercising such powers must be as free from political influences as possible (appointments "during good behavior"). Issuing subpoenas is a judicial function.
Seems that there was some controversy about Clinton using the IRS to audit people he didn't like. That doesn't mean the IRS shouldn't be allowed to audit anyone.
It means that the IRS shouldn't exercise judicial subpoena-type powers either.
Does the Constitution guarantee me the right to bear arms? It certainly does. But, I am not legally able to purchase a fully automatic weapon.
So you think one violation of the Constitution justifies another? Sweet.
During the Cold War did the CIA have to obtain a subpoena to spy on the Soviet Union? No.
Nor did the CIA issue its own "subpoenas" against the Soviet Union.
You are correct, sir, but why encourage the CONTINUED erosion of our rights by not demanding the sunsetting of these oppressive provisions of the "Patriot" ACT.
There is no OFF-SWITCH in the Constittution! All Acts contrary to the provisions of the Constitution are void. Contemplate the implications of this.
The United States Congress also has the power to issue subpoenas and can punish individuals who fail to comply by contempt of Congress, which is similar to contempt of court.
And I ain't wearing no friggen seat belt. Come and get me copper.