Ray, ol' buddy, ol' pal, would you please understand that I have not -- and will not -- take issue with this claim.
A statute can not modify or remove the authority of either house of Congress to enforce its rules or subpoenas, and there has been no Amendment to do so.
Can the veracity of any of the above be in doubt?
Nor have I argued otherwise.
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.
I glean all this from reading the material YOU have provided.
The only problem with all this is that "confidence in the cooperation of the Executive Department" has proven totally misplaced in the Obama administration. And, even while the Sgt-at-Arms may retain the authority to enforce the House's rulings, I gather that he no longer has the means to do so. Nor does the House have the will to so equip him.
*****************************************************
I'm now done with all this. I've made my point. Plus, I'm not terribly interested in the subject and the discussion has become tedious.
If you continue to believe that the authority and power of the Sgt-at-Arms remains unmodified and unimpeded by any legislative or practical considerations subsequent to 1832, well, that's your choice and no skin off my nose.
You base this on your links in post Post 76?
Sergeant-at-Arms Office
Sergeant-at-Arms, History
Sergeant-at-Arms, Duties
Those summaries can hardly be considered complete or authoritative. Additionally, the Supreme Court does not agree:
"The power of either House of Congress to punish for contempt was not impaired by the enactment in 1857 of the statute, Rev. St. § 102 (2 USCA § 192), making refusal to answer or to produce papers before either House, or one of its committees, a misdemeanor." Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125 (1935)
MacCracken was on several occasions held in custody by the Sargeant at Arms of the Senate. After MacCracken had been released and upon a new warrant being issued for his ignoring a subsequent subpoena, the Sargeant at Arms reported Feb. 12, 1934 that he went to MacCracken's place of business to arrest MacCracken but he was unable to locate him as MacCracken was in hiding. 73rd Cong., 78 Cong. Rec. 2410 (1934) https://archive.org/details/congressionalrec78aunit
Both houses of Congress have the power to enforce their subpoena. This power does not "end at the curb". This is not only sensible but is supported by history (Story's Commentaries) and by both Congressional and Court records.
Congress has the authority and duty to check a lawless Executive, they are prevented only by their cowardice. I pray to God for them have no fear, to do their duty, to have an iota of the resolve of the barefoot men at Valley Forge to fight tyranny, and while still possible to end by political means the deluge of lawlessness.
Pardon my saying, but you have a lot of "can't" in you. Is that you, John Boehner? Get out of the way.