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.
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.