Penelope
Diamond Member
- Jul 15, 2014
- 60,260
- 15,767
- 2,210
“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”
— U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 1
Subpoena Power and Contempt
The House has compelled the attendance of witnesses since 1795, when it investigated an attempt to bribe Members. Indeed, early cases of congressional subpoena and contempt powers focused on the abuse or discredit of the House itself. Robert Randall, a real estate speculator, had tried to purchase what is now Michigan from the federal government and share the proceeds with Members of Congress who approved the sale. As a result, Randall was the first individual held in contempt of Congress. The House Sergeant-at-Arms was authorized to arrest him and bring him before the House, where he was reprimanded and placed in a local jail for a week.
Snip
The House reformed and routinized its subpoena and contempt powers during the 19th century. Initially, it had authorized the Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest those disregarding the orders of the House and bring them before its Membership. After an 1857 case involving a reporter for the New York Times who was held in contempt for not divulging his sources for a report concerning potential bribery of House Members, Congress passed the forbearer to the current law on contempt (2 USC §194). In that law, the failure of a witness to answer “any question pertinent” to a congressional investigation would prompt an investigation by the Department of Justice, as well as potential fines and jail time.
Investigations & Oversight | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
For my friends, the Democrats, we do have the power to fine and jail for those in contempt of Congress. Lets jail or fine Barr now and Mnuchin, fine them personally 10,000 bucks a day.
— U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 1
Subpoena Power and Contempt
The House has compelled the attendance of witnesses since 1795, when it investigated an attempt to bribe Members. Indeed, early cases of congressional subpoena and contempt powers focused on the abuse or discredit of the House itself. Robert Randall, a real estate speculator, had tried to purchase what is now Michigan from the federal government and share the proceeds with Members of Congress who approved the sale. As a result, Randall was the first individual held in contempt of Congress. The House Sergeant-at-Arms was authorized to arrest him and bring him before the House, where he was reprimanded and placed in a local jail for a week.
Snip
The House reformed and routinized its subpoena and contempt powers during the 19th century. Initially, it had authorized the Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest those disregarding the orders of the House and bring them before its Membership. After an 1857 case involving a reporter for the New York Times who was held in contempt for not divulging his sources for a report concerning potential bribery of House Members, Congress passed the forbearer to the current law on contempt (2 USC §194). In that law, the failure of a witness to answer “any question pertinent” to a congressional investigation would prompt an investigation by the Department of Justice, as well as potential fines and jail time.
Investigations & Oversight | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
For my friends, the Democrats, we do have the power to fine and jail for those in contempt of Congress. Lets jail or fine Barr now and Mnuchin, fine them personally 10,000 bucks a day.