Replies

How dare they do the Job Congress was elected to do.

Congress has ALL the power in washington, the executive and judicial branch operate according to the whims of CONGRESS!

Congress can Remove the President
Congress can remove the head of every executive agency
Congress can remove ALL of their employees
Congress can Abolish every agency they so choose
Congress can remove EVERY JUDGE IN AMERICA, including every supreme court justice.
Congress can abolish every federal court except the supreme Court
Congress can decide which cases the Judicial Branch can hear and decide
CONGRESS can Imprison ANYONE they want for any reason they so desire for as long as they wish.
Congress can declare WAR

No other governing body has even 10% of the power CONGRESS has!!

CONGRESS IS ALLOWING ALL OF IT!!!

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/

I will continue to beat this drum until everyone else catches on, that it is CONGRESS ALLOWING IT

State Department agrees to reopen Hillary Clinton email case

By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times - Updated: 6:01 p.m. on Thursday, March 12, 2015

excerpt:

The State Department agreed to reopen at least one open-records court case that involved former Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton’s emails, a conservative watchdog group told a federal court Thursday as the scandal over her personal email server continued to develop.

Judicial Watch, which had earlier sued to try to get a look at emails from Mrs. Clinton and top aide, Huma Abedin, said the revelation earlier this month that Mrs. Clinton exclusively used a private email address suggests the State Department may not have been doing a full search of its records when it responded to requests.

In a motion filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., Judicial Watch said it had conferred with the State Department, which “does not oppose reopening the case in this particular circumstance.”

The department didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday evening, though in the court papers Judicial Watch said the department, while agreeing to reopen the case, opposed some of the proposed remedies.

Still, State’s willingness to reopen the case could signal an acknowledgement that the department’s previous searches for documents were incomplete because they lacked Mrs. Clinton’s emails.