Posted on 07/26/2007 12:36:09 AM PDT by Dick Holmes
Congress can enforce its own orders against recalcitrant witnesses without involving the executive branch and without leaving open the possibility of presidential pardon.
And a Supreme Court majority would find it hard to object in the face of two entrenched legal principles.
First is the inherent power of Congress to require testimony on matters within its legislative oversight jurisdiction.
So long as Congress is investigating issues over which it has the power to legislate, it can compel witnesses to appear and respond to questions. That power has been affirmed over and over in prosecutions for contempt.
In modern times, this congressional power has been enforced by referring contempt cases to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia for indictment and prosecution. That, of course, is the rub. It allows the president to exercise his plenary power under the Constitution to issue pardons "for offenses against the United States."
But no law says that indictment and prosecution by the Justice Department is the exclusive means to enforce congressional prerogative.
...Instead of referring a contempt citation to the U.S. attorney, a house of Congress can order the sergeant-at-arms to take recalcitrant witnesses into custody and have them held until they agree to cooperate -- i.e., an order of civil contempt. Technically, the witness could be imprisoned somewhere in the bowels of the Capitol, but historically the sergeant-at-arms has turned defendants over to the custody of the warden of the D.C. jail.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Knowing the socialists in charge of the Congress today, and the wusses on the Republican side, it might be attempted.
'course, you know what they say about payback. :)
The Democrat operatives need to concern themselves with governing instead of playing the "gotcha" game with an administration on its way out of town in less than 18 months.
Oh, wait, that would be something adults would do, wouldn't it? My bad. I should not have mistaken these people for grown-ups.
The Sergeant at Arms is authorized to arrest and detain any person violating Senate rules, including the President of the United States.
Did he add it just now?
They should throw Bush, Cheney, Meiers and Bolton into the clink. Then resign and go home.
Yes, the good ole Sargent and several divisions could do that... :)
“The Sergeant at Arms is authorized to arrest and detain any person violating Senate rules, including the President of the United States.”
Has that been added recently, or is that a pro forma statement that has been there a long time?
LLS
The same people who are fighting for habeas corpus for terrorists at Guantanamo are now asserting that a congressional SA can arrest and hold people until they cooperate? I hate it when congress critters start reliving their former lives as prosecutors and ruining little girl’s lives with huge legal bills. What a bunch of bullies.
I do too Claire... and Congress will soon get a bloody nose from the SCOTUS!
LLS
why did Clinton’s adminstration argue otherwise then?
I think it is a specious arguement based on cases which have been superseded by later rulings.
In U.S. v Nixon (1974) the court ruled that confidentiality based on executive privilege would not be in the public interest in a CRIMINAL case.
However, the Court went on to affirm “It is therefore necessary in the public interest to afford Presidential confidentiality the greatest protection consistent with the fair administration of justice. The need for confidentiality even as to idle conversation with associates in which casual reference might be made concerning political leaders within the country or foreign statesmen is too obvious to call for further treatment. We have no doubt that the District Judge will at all times accord to Presidential records that high degree of deference suggested....”
Good points, and I hope that it backfires on the dims if they try it!
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.