Awww... poor republicans Options

[pebkac]

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/...-gop-stage.html

Wow... the democrats finally stand up to the republicans and now they're acting like children.

[Hartmann]

What's funny is that others have summoned the Democrats to walk out: http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exe...ew.cgi/48/17144

And then of course there's the Texas Democrats that did walk out: http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/13/...ture/index.html

So I guess there's childishness on both sides.

My question is, you're ok with Congress, yes Congress writing resolutions to hold people in contempt? Doesn't that overstep the bounds a bit?

[THECHICKEN]

What's funny is that others have summoned the Democrats to walk out: http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exe...ew.cgi/48/17144

And then of course there's the Texas Democrats that did walk out: http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/13/...ture/index.html

So I guess there's childishness on both sides.

My question is, you're ok with Congress, yes Congress writing resolutions to hold people in contempt? Doesn't that overstep the bounds a bit?

Supreme court has already ruled on something similar. Congress CAN hold someone in contempt.... but only people IN a congressional meeting and disrupting it in such a matter as to require them removed via contempt. And NO congress can't act as a judiciary... the very thought of that is a SCARY overstepping of enumerated powers.

[pebkac]

Supreme court has already ruled on something similar. Congress CAN hold someone in contempt.... but only people IN a congressional meeting and disrupting it in such a matter as to require them removed via contempt. And NO congress can't act as a judiciary... the very thought of that is a SCARY overstepping of enumerated powers.

My understanding is that they can also vote for contempt for not complying with subpoenas that are issued by Congress. After researching this a little bit, the procedure is that once a person is voted to be held in contempt of Congress, the issue is referred over to the US Attorney for DC who is required by law to prosecute the case.

(And yes, you were right. I misinterpreted the clause that allows Congress to "constitute inferior tribunals.")

EDIT: Here's a source:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7041000839.html

A subpoena is the first step in a long process that has rarely reached a clear legal conclusion in the past, experts say. If the administration refuses to comply with the subpoena, the Judiciary Committee could issue a citation for contempt of Congress, followed by a similar citation from the full Congress. That would then require the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia -- a former Gonzales aide -- to empanel a grand jury to consider criminal indictments.

In almost all cases, administrations have chosen to fully or substantially comply with such requests before they lead to criminal proceedings. In 1998, for example, a GOP-led House committee issued a contempt citation to then-Attorney General Janet Reno for refusing to turn over internal Justice Department memos. Justice offered a staff briefing on the documents, and the full House never acted on the citation.

"I'm not sure how the administration could win on this claim, in terms of keeping those documents," said Martin S. Lederman, a visiting law professor at Georgetown University who worked in Justice's Office of Legal Counsel from 1994 to 2002.

This post has been edited by pebkac: Feb 15 2008, 10:12 AM