Oh, the contempt

Steve this is another of those pointless exercise that the Democrats appear to prefer over actual governance.But this is taking it up a notch because the only outcome I see from this is a Constitutional crisis.

Where in the Constitution does it say Congress can hold someone in contempt for not testifying? It’s not in the Constitution. It is an implied power of Congress, just like executive privilege is an implied power of the presidency.

Since 1975, 10 Cabinet level or senior executive officials have been cited for contempt for failure to produce subpoenaed documents. The 10 officials are Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Commerce Secretary Rogers C. B. Morton in 1975; Health, Education, and Welfare Secretary Joseph A. Califano, Junior, in 1978; Energy Secretary Charles Duncan in 1980; Energy Secretary James B. Edwards in 1981; Interior Secretary James Watt in 1982; EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch, known as Anne Gorsuch Burford after a 1983 marriage, and Attorney General William French Smith in 1983; White House Counsel John M. Quinn in 1996; and Attorney General Janet Reno in 1998.

The White House and Congress came to negotiated agreements in each case before criminal proceedings could begin. But this doesn't appear to be happening this time ;nor do I think that either side wants SCOTUS to intervene.

So they issue the contempt and hand it off to AG Gonzalez to execute . Then what ? Do they really think he will give it to a grand jury ? They have NO AUTHORITY on their own without a court order;and the Justice Dept .has to order it .So then what ? The Dems will argue that the law says : "whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action."

The House voted 259-105 in 1982 for a contempt citation against EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch .The Reagan Justice Department refused to prosecute the case. The Justice Department also sued the House of Representatives, saying its attempt to force Gorsuch to turn over documents interfered with the executive branch. The court threw the case out and urged negotiation between the executive and the legislative branches. The Justice Department did not appeal the ruling, and the Reagan administration eventually agreed to turn over the documents. Again it fell short of being a Constitutional crisis.

The Dems.could threaten to march the House Sergeant at Arms to the White House to arrest Miers and Bolten (sorta their own version of a rendition program) setting up a potential stand off between law enforcement agencies?

Former Chairman James Sensenbrenner says the Dems can't win this fight .He suggests instead that Congress should This would take it out of the Constitutional crisis territory and would be the basis for a resolution.

Hello Steve:

I'll bet on the country over the imperial president. Oversight IS the job of congress - or do you think it's just kissing a$$?

excon

PS> A civil suit? The country in crisis and you think congress should file a CIVIL SUIT? You guys are really waaaaay out there.

No, excon, its not. Read the Constitution. The job of Congress is to LEGISLATE, not to perform oversite of the President. If they don't like what the president is doing, they can cut funding for whatever they don't like. That is the check-and-balance system that is in place via the Constitution. They also have the power to override a veto as part of their authority. But they are NOT an Executive oversite body, and trying to take that power is a violation of separation of powers.

Please tell me where you got the idea that Congress has oversite authority over the Executive Branch. For a strict Constitutionalist, as you have claimed to be, that statement is pretty "out there".

No, I don't think that Congress should file a civil suit. I think they should drop the matter since they have no authority over it. There is no "crisis"... There is merely heated disagreement between parties. But the contempt ruling in question will create a Constitutional Crisis.

Elliot

Why is a civil suit way out there and staging a dog and pony show that could lead to a Constitutional crisis not way out there ?


BTW for your reference ;Sensenbrenner's comment is based upon U.S. V. Nixon .

Hello tom:

You got it backwards. It's the president who is fomenting a Constitutional crisis.

excon

Bush has nothing but comtempt for congress and the people of the US. In my opinion he doesn't care what happens to the US or its people, he is a lame duck in office.

So... Bush didn't actually do anything wrong. You just don't like him because he has "contempt for Congress and the people of the US."

Hate to tell you this, Mr. Yet, but even if you are correct, which I doubt, there is nothing illegal about that, and contempt charges against him or his administration are out of order.

Elliot

Hello again, El:

When conducting investigations of the executive branch, congressional committees and Members of Congress generally receive the information required for legislative needs. If agencies fail to cooperate or the President invokes executive privilege, Congress can turn to a number of legislative powers that are likely to compel compliance. The two techniques are the issuance of subpoenas and the holding of executive officials in contempt.

The Supreme Court has described the congressional power of inquiry as “an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function.” The issuance of a subpoena pursuant to an authorized investigation is “an indispensable ingredient of lawmaking.”

Although the congressional power to investigate is not expressly provided for in the Constitution, the framers understood that legislatures must oversee the executive branch. Under British precedents lawmakers were expected to hold administrators accountable. James Wilson, one of the framers and later a Justice on the Supreme Court, expected the House to “form the grand inquest of the state. They will diligently inquire into grievances, arising both from men and things.”

At the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention, George Mason emphasized the congress “are not only Legislators, but they possess inquisitorial powers. The must meet frequently to inspect the conduct of the public offices”.

Being a Constitutionalist, I referred to the Constitution for my answer, and whaddya know – there it was.

excon

It depends on the importance of the asserted interest in getting the answers. See United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974).