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"