Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
He should be arrested by the Sgt. at Arms of the House. But, naturally, that will likely never again happen in U.S. history.
He should be arrested by the Sgt. at Arms of the House. But, naturally, that will likely never again happen in U.S. history.
1. Again?
2. What would that accomplish? Arrest someone, just to have him released when the DOJ continues to refuse to charge Holder.
3. You really think that such dramatic fanfare is going to do the GOP any good? It's only going to be viewed as silly and extremist for no good reason.
Yes, again. That power was used by BOTH Houses of Congress in the past.
It is a conccept with which you are unfamiliar. But the concept is not difficult. In effect, the Congress keeps the AG in "jail" UNTIL he complies with the subpoena. Its not a criminal contempt power so much as the civil side of it. The detainee holds the keys to his own cell, in effect. All he has to do is comply with the law and honor the subpoena. That's what it is designed to accomplish and the political tomfoolery of the DoJ has nothing at all to do with it.
It would serve its purpose if this pantload AG relented and finally complied with the law.
Yes, again. That power was used by BOTH Houses of Congress in the past.
I've never heard of such an occurrence happening. Can you give a link or something? Sounds like it would make an interesting history lesson.
It is a conccept with which you are unfamiliar. But the concept is not difficult. In effect, the Congress keeps the AG in "jail" UNTIL he complies with the subpoena. Its not a criminal contempt power so much as the civil side of it. The detainee holds the keys to his own cell, in effect. All he has to do is comply with the law and honor the subpoena. That's what it is designed to accomplish and the political tomfoolery of the DoJ has nothing at all to do with it.
Actually, what would happen is that Holder would be tried before the Senate. You really think that the Democratic Controlled Senate, with VP Biden serving as judge, is going to punish Holder? No, it would all be a waste of time.
It would serve its purpose if this pantload AG relented and finally complied with the law.
Holder is already complying with the law. Executive Privilege has been invoked.
He should be arrested by the Sgt. at Arms of the House. But, naturally, that will likely never again happen in U.S. history.
1. Again?
2. What would that accomplish? Arrest someone, just to have him released when the DOJ continues to refuse to charge Holder.
3. You really think that such dramatic fanfare is going to do the GOP any good? It's only going to be viewed as silly and extremist for no good reason.
Yes, again. That power was used by BOTH Houses of Congress in the past.
It is a conccept with which you are unfamiliar. But the concept is not difficult. In effect, the Congress keeps the AG in "jail" UNTIL he complies with the subpoena. Its not a criminal contempt power so much as the civil side of it. The detainee holds the keys to his own cell, in effect. All he has to do is comply with the law and honor the subpoena. That's what it is designed to accomplish and the political tomfoolery of the DoJ has nothing at all to do with it.
It would serve its purpose if this pantload AG relented and finally complied with the law.
CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS V. EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE by1. Congresss Inherent Contempt Power
From the very first decade of the Constitution, Congress took the
position that it had the right to imprison individuals in order to enforce
certain constitutional prerogatives. Congress used this inherent
contempt power to enforce its subpoenas for testimony and documents
and imprisoned contumacious witnesses until they complied
with the subpoena. The first use of Congresss inherent contempt
power against a defaulting witness took place in 1800 when a newspaper
editor, William Duane, was ordered by Senate resolution to appear
before the Senate and make any proper defense for his conduct
in publishing the aforesaid false, defamatory, scandalous, and
malicious assertions and pretended information.59 After initially appearing
before the Senate, Duane refused to return on the ground
that he would not receive a fair trial and was subsequently found to
be in contempt of Congress and arrested and held in Senate custody
for several weeks.60 Between 1795 and 1857, Congress initiated fourteen
inherent contempt actions, and in eight of those cases the contumacious
witness agreed to testify or produce documents after being
arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms.61
Congresss inherent contempt power extends to the imposition of
what is essentially a civil contempt sanction on those who fail to
comply with congressional subpoenas.62 Under this procedure, a
committee may adopt a resolution to request the presiding officer of
the chamber to issue an arrest warrant to be executed by the Seargent-
at-Arms, who will bring the witness before the bar of the House.63
If the full chamber adopts a resolution ordering confinement of the
witness, the witness may be confined in a congressional cell pending
compliance with the subpoena.64 Because this power is a form of civil
contempt, the witness must be released once he complies with the
subpoena.65 The witness has a right to at least some form of hearing
before the legislature before contempt sanctions are imposed,66 and
he may assert any defenses to the subpoena, including privilege and a
lack of congressional authority, either before the committee or the
full chamber, or in a habeas corpus proceeding in court.67 Neither
House has utilized this inherent contempt power since 1932.68
Four important Supreme Court decisions defined the extent of
Congresss inherent contempt power. The Supreme Court first recognized
Congresss inherent contempt power in the 1821 case of Anderson
v. Dunn,69 which involved an action for trespassing against the
House Sergeant-at-Arms for assault and battery and false imprisonment
brought by a contumacious witness.70 The Supreme Court sustained
the dismissal of the case against the Sergeant-at-Arms on the
ground that the House had inherent authority to punish contempt in
order to protect its ability to carry out its constitutional responsibilities.
71 A contrary conclusion, the Court stated,
leads to the total annihilation of the power of the House of Representatives
to guard itself from contempts, and leaves it exposed to every indignity
and interruption that rudeness, caprice, or even conspiracy, may
mediate against it. This result is fraught with too much absurdity not to
bring into doubt the soundness of any argument from which it is derived.
That a deliberate assembly, clothed with the majesty of the people, and
charged with the care of all that is dear to them, composed of the most
distinguished citizens, selected and drawn together from every corner of
a great nation, whose deliberations are required by public opinion to be
conducted under the eye of the public, and whose decisions must be
clothed with all that sanctity which unlimited confidence in their wisdom
and purity can inspire, that such an assembly should not possess the
power to suppress rudeness, or repel insult, is a supposition too wild to
be suggested.72
The Court was not particularly careful in its constitutional analysis
and it cited no constitutional history, case law, or any other precedents
to support the conclusion that Congress should have such an
inherent contempt power. The Court was unconcerned about the
potential for congressional abuse of the contempt power and addressed
those concerns by stating only that respectful deportment
. . . will render all apprehension chimerical.73 The Court limited
the contempt power to the least possible power adequate to
the end proposed.74 Moreover, punishment for contempt must be
limited to the life of the legislative body which ceases to exist on the
moment of its adjournment or periodical dissolution. It follows, that
imprisonment must terminate with that adjournment.75 This power
corresponds in many respects to the civil contempt power of a grand
jury.76
Thereafter, in Kilbourn v. Thompson,77 the Court held that Congresss
contempt power was reviewable by the courts, and that, because
of the popular origin and political nature of Congress, the
judiciary should most careful[ly] scrutin[ize] this assertion of authority.
78 Next, the Supreme Court further explained the precise nature
of Congresss inherent contempt power in In re Chapman,79 where
it rejected a challenge to a contempt of Congress conviction on the
ground that the prosecutionfirst under a criminal statute and then
punishment pursuant to Congresss inherent contempt power
created double jeopardy for the same offense and violation of the
Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.80 The Court ruled the contumacious
witness is not subjected to jeopardy twice for the same offence,
since the same act may be an offence against one jurisdiction
and also an offence against another.81 So, because Congresss inherent
contempt of Congress authority is essentially the equivalent of
civil contempt, it does not violate the double jeopardy clause to utilize
that power and later prosecute the contumacious witness for criminal
contempt of Congress.82
In 1917, the Court imposed additional constraints on Congresss
inherent contempt power in the case of Marshall v. Gordon.83 * * * *
1. Again?
2. What would that accomplish? Arrest someone, just to have him released when the DOJ continues to refuse to charge Holder.
3. You really think that such dramatic fanfare is going to do the GOP any good? It's only going to be viewed as silly and extremist for no good reason.
Yes, again. That power was used by BOTH Houses of Congress in the past.
It is a conccept with which you are unfamiliar. But the concept is not difficult. In effect, the Congress keeps the AG in "jail" UNTIL he complies with the subpoena. Its not a criminal contempt power so much as the civil side of it. The detainee holds the keys to his own cell, in effect. All he has to do is comply with the law and honor the subpoena. That's what it is designed to accomplish and the political tomfoolery of the DoJ has nothing at all to do with it.
It would serve its purpose if this pantload AG relented and finally complied with the law.
I would REALLY like to see the Sgt at arms arrest Holder on The Boner's or Issa's word. You say Holder is a "pantload"? All lawyers are "a pantload". They ALL lie. They ALL withhold information. It is comical that they all get promoted on "character and ability". The best lawyers are the best bullshitters and get the highest positions and the best incomes. NOW you get your panties in a twist because you think Holder is a liar? I call bullshit. You are clearly just jealous and a clumsy liar for a shyster or you would be too busy raking in huge fees for your own services to even waste a minute here on USMB.
True story.
No You are confusing impeachment for civil contempt. There is no Senate "trial" involved at all. There is nothing TO try. Holder is in contempt for refusing to comply with the House subpoena. He can terminate the civil arrest detention by complying. That's all there is to it.
Holder had not complied with the law BEFORE he ever asked the President to invoke Executive Privilege.
The President now needs to justify the claim to the body (the House) demanding the records. He won't do it though because he can't. Not honestly, anyway.
CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS V. EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE by
Todd David Peterson; JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, Vol. 14:1 http://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/c.../issue1/Peterson14U.Pa.J.Const.L.77(2011).pdf
First, the contention that there are historical precedents for the use of Congresss inherent contempt power against officials who assert the Presidents claim of executive privilege21 is incorrect. Not only is there no precedent for such use of Congresss contempt power, in over 200 years of innumerable contentious disputes over congressional access to executive branch information, Congress has never asserted that it has such authority. Moreover, claims that Congress needs such power to enforce its investigative demands22 are belied by the consistent success (indeed, some might say too much success) Congress has had in forcing disclosures from the executive branch since the Watergate era during the Nixon Administration. Second, arguments in favor of Congresss absolute authority to determine the validity of an executive privilege claim are no more consistent with Supreme Court precedent and our constitutional history than the Presidents arguments in favor of absolute privilege. Giving Congress such absolute power would only aggravate the current tendency for Congress to use its investigative power for partisan purposes.
No You are confusing impeachment for civil contempt. There is no Senate "trial" involved at all. There is nothing TO try. Holder is in contempt for refusing to comply with the House subpoena. He can terminate the civil arrest detention by complying. That's all there is to it.
This would be nothing more than the legislature attempting to interfere with the the doings of the Executive Branch, in violation of constitutional separation of powers.
Holder had not complied with the law BEFORE he ever asked the President to invoke Executive Privilege.
The privilege exists and is valid even before so stated. Indeed, expecting that a privilege in regards to subpoenaed information be proclaimed before said subpoena is issued, is sheer absurdity.
The President now needs to justify the claim to the body (the House) demanding the records. He won't do it though because he can't. Not honestly, anyway.
No.
CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS V. EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE by
Todd David Peterson; JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, Vol. 14:1 http://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/c.../issue1/Peterson14U.Pa.J.Const.L.77(2011).pdf
From your link:
First, the contention that there are historical precedents for the use of Congresss inherent contempt power against officials who assert the Presidents claim of executive privilege21 is incorrect. Not only is there no precedent for such use of Congresss contempt power, in over 200 years of innumerable contentious disputes over congressional access to executive branch information, Congress has never asserted that it has such authority. Moreover, claims that Congress needs such power to enforce its investigative demands22 are belied by the consistent success (indeed, some might say too much success) Congress has had in forcing disclosures from the executive branch since the Watergate era during the Nixon Administration. Second, arguments in favor of Congresss absolute authority to determine the validity of an executive privilege claim are no more consistent with Supreme Court precedent and our constitutional history than the Presidents arguments in favor of absolute privilege. Giving Congress such absolute power would only aggravate the current tendency for Congress to use its investigative power for partisan purposes.
Nonsense. It would be the Legislative Branch ENFORCING its own Constitutional obligations, rights and duties.
And nobody said "proclaim it before the subpoena." But it wasn't asserted until the eve of the fucking dishonest hack AG getting held in contempt.
No what? No he can't honestly justify it? Well, if that's what you're trying to say, good for you. But I suspect you are merely attempting to deny that he is obligated to justify it.
Despite you willingness to lap up all things muttered by The ONE, you would then be simply and flatly wrong. He absolutely DOES need to justify it.
Nonsense. It would be the Legislative Branch ENFORCING its own Constitutional obligations, rights and duties.
Obligations, rights, and duties over the Executive Branch? No, that BS argument has no merit.
And nobody said "proclaim it before the subpoena." But it wasn't asserted until the eve of the fucking dishonest hack AG getting held in contempt.
I don't care if it's not asserted until the eve of the first manned mission landing on Mars. The privilege exists, therefore Congress does not have jurisdiction to require the documents.
No what? No he can't honestly justify it? Well, if that's what you're trying to say, good for you. But I suspect you are merely attempting to deny that he is obligated to justify it.
No, to your assertion that the President needs to justify the privilege.
If he did, it wouldn't be privilege.
He does not need to tell Congress anything about how the information is privileged.
The explanation is inherent in the claim of Executive Privilege.
That's how Washington did it,
that's how Bush did it,
and the rules don't magically change just because it's Obama.
Despite you willingness to lap up all things muttered by The ONE, you would then be simply and flatly wrong. He absolutely DOES need to justify it.
In case you missed it the other million times I've said it, I'm not an Obama supporter. But I'll reject every single BS argument made against him because BAD ARGUMENTS AGAINST ONLY EMPOWER SUPPORT FOR. You idiotic Obama-deranged are no better than the idiotic Bush-deranged. You're so hellbent on bitching and complaining about all things Obama that you don't care if what you're saying has any merit or not, just as long as you're complaining about the man you think that's good enough. It's idiots like you who are responsible for the fact that the only alternative we have now is the idiot fucking Romney, just like the idiot Bush-deranged are responsible for the fact that the alternative we were given in 2004 was the idiot fucking Kerry. Those idiots helped secure the victory of Bush back then, and idiots like you are helping secure the victory of Obama now. Thanks alot you jackass. It's assclowns like you that are responsible for the continued degradation of the United States.
Try not to be so obtuse. I realize that would be difficult for you, you being a drone lib and all.
Let me introduce you to a concept you REALLY should have heard about long ago. Checks and balances. Advise and Consent.
Why do you imagine that Congress HAS an investigatory poer in the first place? In your universe, do you imagine that the Exeuctive can do whatever the fuck it likes without any investigation by Congress?
False. The privilege exists. The CLAIM of the privilege is not something that can be invoked without any questioning about its legitimacy under the circumstances.
This is why the claim MUST be explained. For things to be otherwise, silly child, you would be effectively be claiming that the President is above questioning. He isn't.
I love it when I force you to write coherently.
I'd say executive privilege in this case is justified....since all the Evidence in the case was put forth before republicans a couple of weeks before the President and his advisers were discussing it....from what I read, the Repubs and congress has no right or justifications to want to know what the president and his advisers discussed AFTER THE FACT.
In another tense exchange Thursday, GOP Rep. Lamar Smith asked Holder whether he or anybody else told the White House about so-called gunwalking tactic after it appeared to contribute to the death of a U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry, Holder replied I dont know.
The exchange occurred during a hearing held by the House Judiciary Committee, on which Smith is the chairman.
When was anyone in the White House informed of the tactics used under Operation Fast and Furious? asked Smith, R-Texas.
Holder replied: I don't know.
When Smith asked Holder if he personally told the White House, Holder replied: There was contact between staff. .. I don't myself remember any direct contact.
The subpoena has nothing to do with whether the President knew about Fast and Furious. It demands documents to explain why the DOJ withdrew its letter to Congress.
precisely that, is what our constitution guarantees, a separation of powers.The subpoena has nothing to do with whether the President knew about Fast and Furious. It demands documents to explain why the DOJ withdrew its letter to Congress.
The subpoena seeks LOTS of items. PART of what it seeks includes why the DoJ withdrew SOME of its prior positions.
What the fuck does that have to do with anything?
Are you really claiming that there is a claim of Executive Privilege attachd to the internal thinking of DoJ officials ABOUT what to tell Congress?
Are you fucking kidding?
