Posted on 04/16/2014 8:02:40 AM PDT by MeshugeMikey
A Republican congressman has introduced a bill that would stop government paychecks for officials who have been found in contempt of Congress — a move that seems designed in the short term to go after Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.
Mr. Holder has refused to cooperate with House Republicans’ probe into the Fast & Furious gun-walking operation, and the House has voted to find him in contempt. Mr. Holder is challenging that vote in court.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
retroactive...with some sort of PENALITIES attached!
I’d rather force him to stare at nude photo’s of Barney Frank and Joy Blowhard.
But it’s not constructive.
It is deceptive, just to get them back into office, where they can continue to pander to and promote leftism/progressivism.
While doing that, they ensure the defeat of true “representatives” that would be fighting for us.
All of this is highly destructive.
Indeed
Is it? I'm not a lawyer but if it applies to any official found in contempt of Congress and effects only future pay it seems like it would be perfectly legal to me.
I doubt it will get passed though.
When Holder was found to be in contempt of Congress it was not against the law for him to continue to draw his salary. Now Congress wants to change that. For it to be legal I believe the law would have to say any future contempt of Congress citation would result in loss of pay.
As a general rule, the prohibition against ex post facto laws in the U.S. Constitution applies only to criminal laws, not civil laws (see Calder v. Bull), which is why Congress passes ex post facto tax laws every day and twice on Sunday. I’m not sure what courts would hold if something like an Executive Branch officer’s salary was denied due to an event that took place prior to passage of such law, which also involves aspects of bill of attainder and separation of power. The bill is reminiscent of the recent law signed by Obama to deny a visa to a person being deemed by the State Department (or whomever) to have been involved in terrorism.
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.