Rumpole
Diamond Member
- Mar 20, 2023
- 2,844
- 2,250
- 1,928
I find this an interesting development in current events. If Congress decides to investigate (or rather, apparently it has decided to investigate) what it believes is a wrongful prosecution, a prosecution which, in my view, Congress arbitrarily assumes has a political motivation, to investigate without sufficient predication, without evidence beyond the fact that the target of the investigation is a former Republican President with no other evidence than that mere fact, of the Manhattan District Attorney's office, which, in my view, unjustly impugns the integrity of that office and of DA Bragg.
So has it abused it's power--has Congress violated any provisions in the Constitution? Maybe, maybe not. That's all I can figure, But let's take a deep dive, and discuss. I shall start the conversation, noting that any declarations of fact are, in fact, 'my layman's opinion', and, of course, subject to confirmation by more authoritative sources, such as if my citations are wrong, (let me know, but I think they are correct) such as any real lawyers who might be lurking in the peanut gallery, and please chime in, if you are there:
As I understand it, the question of whether Congress has the power to investigate a municipal office like the Manhattan District Attorney's office for wrongful prosecution with alleged political motivations is a complex one that involves various constitutional provisions and Supreme Court cases. While Congress has broad investigative authority, it is also bound by certain limitations and requirements under the Constitution.
Firstly, the Constitution grants Congress the power to investigate under the necessary and proper clause of Article I, Section 8. This clause gives Congress the authority to make all laws that are necessary and proper for carrying out its other powers and responsibilities, including the power to investigate. However, this power is not unlimited, and there are limits to Congress's investigative authority.
One limitation on Congress's investigative authority is the requirement of a legitimate legislative purpose. The Supreme Court has held that investigations must have a legitimate legislative purpose and must be related to a subject on which Congress could legislate. In Watkins v. United States (1957), the Court stated that the "power of Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process" and that "the scope of the power of inquiry ... is as penetrating and far-reaching as the potential power to enact and appropriate under the Constitution." However, the Court also held that Congress cannot investigate solely for the purpose of exposing wrongdoing or embarrassing individuals.
Another limitation on Congress's investigative authority is the requirement of a proper basis for investigation. In Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund (1975), the Supreme Court held that Congress cannot investigate solely on the basis of "suspicions of malfeasance" or "general oversight responsibility." Instead, there must be a specific basis for the investigation, such as evidence of wrongdoing or a need for legislative reform.
In the case of investigating the Manhattan District Attorney's office for wrongful prosecution with alleged political motivations, Congress would need to demonstrate a legitimate legislative purpose and a proper basis for the investigation. It is not enough for Congress to simply assume that there is political motivation behind the prosecutions or to investigate solely for the purpose of exposing wrongdoing. Instead, there must be a specific legislative reason for the investigation, such as identifying and addressing potential abuses of prosecutorial power or ensuring that the criminal justice system is operating fairly and impartially.
Additionally, Congress must also respect the constitutional limits on its investigative authority. One of these limits is the doctrine of federalism, which reserves certain powers to the states and limits federal interference in state affairs. The Supreme Court has held that Congress cannot use its investigative authority to interfere with the operations of state or local governments or to conduct a "fishing expedition" into state or local affairs.
In the case of investigating the Manhattan District Attorney's office, Congress must be careful not to overstep its bounds and interfere with the operations of a municipal office. While Congress has broad investigative authority, it cannot use that authority to interfere with the day-to-day operations of state or local governments or to undermine their authority.
In conclusion, while Congress has broad investigative authority under the Constitution, it is not unlimited, and there are limits to its power. Congress must have a legitimate legislative purpose and a proper basis for its investigations, and it must respect the constitutional limits on its authority. In the case of investigating the Manhattan District Attorney's office for wrongful prosecution with alleged political motivations, Congress must demonstrate a specific legislative reason for the investigation and must be careful not to interfere with the operations of a municipal office.
www.axios.com
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office on Thursday rebuffed a request from top House Republicans for testimony and documents about his investigation into former President Trump.
Why it matters: Bragg’s response leaves Republicans with little room to maneuver in their effort to dent the probe’s credibility — forcing them to decide whether to venture into the uncharted territory of subpoenaing a local prosecutor.
Driving the news: In a letter to Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) and House Administration Chair Bryan Steil (R-Wis.), Bragg’s general counsel Leslie Dubeck said the GOP request is “an unprecedent inquiry into a pending local prosecution.”
So has it abused it's power--has Congress violated any provisions in the Constitution? Maybe, maybe not. That's all I can figure, But let's take a deep dive, and discuss. I shall start the conversation, noting that any declarations of fact are, in fact, 'my layman's opinion', and, of course, subject to confirmation by more authoritative sources, such as if my citations are wrong, (let me know, but I think they are correct) such as any real lawyers who might be lurking in the peanut gallery, and please chime in, if you are there:
As I understand it, the question of whether Congress has the power to investigate a municipal office like the Manhattan District Attorney's office for wrongful prosecution with alleged political motivations is a complex one that involves various constitutional provisions and Supreme Court cases. While Congress has broad investigative authority, it is also bound by certain limitations and requirements under the Constitution.
Firstly, the Constitution grants Congress the power to investigate under the necessary and proper clause of Article I, Section 8. This clause gives Congress the authority to make all laws that are necessary and proper for carrying out its other powers and responsibilities, including the power to investigate. However, this power is not unlimited, and there are limits to Congress's investigative authority.
One limitation on Congress's investigative authority is the requirement of a legitimate legislative purpose. The Supreme Court has held that investigations must have a legitimate legislative purpose and must be related to a subject on which Congress could legislate. In Watkins v. United States (1957), the Court stated that the "power of Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process" and that "the scope of the power of inquiry ... is as penetrating and far-reaching as the potential power to enact and appropriate under the Constitution." However, the Court also held that Congress cannot investigate solely for the purpose of exposing wrongdoing or embarrassing individuals.
Another limitation on Congress's investigative authority is the requirement of a proper basis for investigation. In Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund (1975), the Supreme Court held that Congress cannot investigate solely on the basis of "suspicions of malfeasance" or "general oversight responsibility." Instead, there must be a specific basis for the investigation, such as evidence of wrongdoing or a need for legislative reform.
In the case of investigating the Manhattan District Attorney's office for wrongful prosecution with alleged political motivations, Congress would need to demonstrate a legitimate legislative purpose and a proper basis for the investigation. It is not enough for Congress to simply assume that there is political motivation behind the prosecutions or to investigate solely for the purpose of exposing wrongdoing. Instead, there must be a specific legislative reason for the investigation, such as identifying and addressing potential abuses of prosecutorial power or ensuring that the criminal justice system is operating fairly and impartially.
Additionally, Congress must also respect the constitutional limits on its investigative authority. One of these limits is the doctrine of federalism, which reserves certain powers to the states and limits federal interference in state affairs. The Supreme Court has held that Congress cannot use its investigative authority to interfere with the operations of state or local governments or to conduct a "fishing expedition" into state or local affairs.
In the case of investigating the Manhattan District Attorney's office, Congress must be careful not to overstep its bounds and interfere with the operations of a municipal office. While Congress has broad investigative authority, it cannot use that authority to interfere with the day-to-day operations of state or local governments or to undermine their authority.
In conclusion, while Congress has broad investigative authority under the Constitution, it is not unlimited, and there are limits to its power. Congress must have a legitimate legislative purpose and a proper basis for its investigations, and it must respect the constitutional limits on its authority. In the case of investigating the Manhattan District Attorney's office for wrongful prosecution with alleged political motivations, Congress must demonstrate a specific legislative reason for the investigation and must be careful not to interfere with the operations of a municipal office.
Manhattan DA sends scathing response to GOP’s request for testimony
Alvin Bragg’s office said the GOP’s request is “ unlawful incursion into New York’s sovereignty.”
www.axios.com
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office on Thursday rebuffed a request from top House Republicans for testimony and documents about his investigation into former President Trump.
Why it matters: Bragg’s response leaves Republicans with little room to maneuver in their effort to dent the probe’s credibility — forcing them to decide whether to venture into the uncharted territory of subpoenaing a local prosecutor.
Driving the news: In a letter to Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) and House Administration Chair Bryan Steil (R-Wis.), Bragg’s general counsel Leslie Dubeck said the GOP request is “an unprecedent inquiry into a pending local prosecution.”
- The House GOP's request to Bragg “only came after Donald Trump created a false expectation that he would be arrested the next day and his lawyers reportedly urged you to intervene,” she wrote. “Neither fact is a legitimate basis for congressional inquiry.”
- The letter seeks “non-public information about a pending criminal investigation, which is confidential under state law.”
- The requests are an “unlawful incursion into New York’s sovereignty” under the 10th Amendment, which is understood to prevent congressional inquiries into matters delegated to the states.
- Congress is “not the appropriate branch” to review a pending criminal case. Instead, Dubeck wrote, the courts are the “proper forum” for a challenge.
- Requests for information about the use of federal funding are “an insufficient basis to justify these unconstitutional requests.”
