In Contempt of The People

[White 6]

Still, it is unconstitutional for congress to conduct an investigation, trial, and sentencing over criminal matters. Congress can only use the powers of subpoena when exercising it's legislative duty.

Any matter of criminal wrong-doing must be turned over to the Executive branch (for arresting and investigating) and the Judicial branch (for interpretation of laws and sentencing).

This is an on-going problem with congress that has been used by both Republicans and Democrats over the past several decades, so don't feel like I'm arguing out of partisanship. I am arguing out of patriotism and the belief that we have a good foundation of government. But the laws of the land need to be heeded by all.

Take it up with the Supreme Court. The law has been on the books a long, long time.

 

[Samofvt]

Take it up with the Supreme Court. The law has been on the books a long, long time.

The law is written in the Constitution of the United States of America.

Probably what you are referring to is the weak precedent set by those two cases you cited. Both of those citations (if you actually read the decisions full text, not just quote the title) talk about "only in the fulfilment of their duties of legislative action..."

Even those SCOTUS opinions do not give Congress cart-blanch authority to do whatever the fuck they want. What the congress is doing today has been stolen over time and supported by weak minded fools that think congress knows best.

 

[Samofvt]

Take it up with the Supreme Court. The law has been on the books a long, long time.

I forgot to say: those opinions you cite are NOT the law.

 

[White 6]

I forgot to say: those opinions you cite are NOT the law.

No the law itself is

2 U.S. Code § 192​

contempt of Congress

www.law.cornell.edu

2 USC 194

2 U.S. Code § 194 - Certification of failure to testify or produce; grand jury action

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Samofvt]

No the law itself is

2 U.S. Code § 192​

contempt of Congress

www.law.cornell.edu

2 USC 194

2 U.S. Code § 194 - Certification of failure to testify or produce; grand jury action

www.law.cornell.edu

Lets be clear: THOSE LAWS ONLY APPLY TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WHEN THEY ARE CONDUCTING LEGISLATIVE DUTIES.

Even Democratic majority leader Nancy Pelosi said:

"The unprecedented nature of Jan. 6 demands this unprecedented decision," Pelosi said.
KEY WORD: UNPRECEDENTED

Q. What law is the House of Representatives deliberating upon by which they are exercising their duties and their ability to subpoena?

A. None. They are conducting a criminal investigation outside of their constitutional privileges.

Is the committee non-partisan in nature? Negative: it is comprised of 8 Democrats and one Rhino who has voiced hate speech against the republican party and the executive branch on numerous occasions.

No, this matter should be investigated by proper authorities, not conspiracy theorists like you, pelosi, aoc or Bennie Thompson. The president of a House of Representatives committee conducting a trial of a US Citizen is UNPRECEDENTED. Either the man committed a crime and evidence was found by the CIA/FBI/DOJ, or he did not.

 

[White 6]

Lets be clear: THOSE LAWS ONLY APPLY TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WHEN THEY ARE CONDUCTING LEGISLATIVE DUTIES.

Even Democratic majority leader Nancy Pelosi said:

"The unprecedented nature of Jan. 6 demands this unprecedented decision," Pelosi said.
KEY WORD: UNPRECEDENTED

Q. What law is the House of Representatives deliberating upon by which they are exercising their duties and their ability to subpoena?

A. None. They are conducting a criminal investigation outside of their constitutional privileges.

Is the committee non-partisan in nature? Negative: it is comprised of 8 Democrats and one Rhino who has voiced hate speech against the republican party and the executive branch on numerous occasions.

No, this matter should be investigated by proper authorities, not conspiracy theorists like you, pelosi, aoc or Bennie Thompson. The president of a House of Representatives committee conducting a trial of a US Citizen is UNPRECEDENTED. Either the man committed a crime and evidence was found by the CIA/FBI/DOJ, or he did not.

Well good luck. If you think the right wing supreme court will step in and save your bacon on this one, you've been smoking tooooooooo much dope.

 

[Samofvt]

Well good luck. If you think the right wing supreme court will step in and save your bacon on this one, you've been smoking tooooooooo much dope.

Since you are having difficulty with the laws of the land, I thought I would attach the pertinent information: The Constitution of the United States of America. Article I established the rules of the congress, Section 8 specifies *exactly* what powers congress shall have. Nowhere is there any language that suggests congress can investigate or hold trials for criminal offenses committed by American citizens.

These laws cannot be abridged by Congress. Furthermore, In Amendment V of the Amendments to the Constitution (aka the Bill of Rights), it states "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury...".

Go ahead and take a look at the 26 Amendments, but you will not find anything to support your claims. The laws you referred to earlier ONLY APPLY TO LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS, WHICH ARE STRICTLY LIMITED BY THE CONSTITUTION TO CREATING LAWS.

Congress is overstepping its constitutional authority. Period.

 

[White 6]

Since you are having difficulty with the laws of the land, I thought I would attach the pertinent information: The Constitution of the United States of America. Article I established the rules of the congress, Section 8 specifies *exactly* what powers congress shall have. Nowhere is there any language that suggests congress can investigate or hold trials for criminal offenses committed by American citizens.

These laws cannot be abridged by Congress. Furthermore, In Amendment V of the Amendments to the Constitution (aka the Bill of Rights), it states "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury...".

Go ahead and take a look at the 26 Amendments, but you will not find anything to support your claims. The laws you referred to earlier ONLY APPLY TO LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS, WHICH ARE STRICTLY LIMITED BY THE CONSTITUTION TO CREATING LAWS.

Congress is overstepping its constitutional authority. Period.

Take it up with congress, as they passed the US Code, I listed and the Supremes, have so far been reasonably satisfied. You can argue your case before them. I can't help you and don't care to try. I am on the side of the American people wanting answers for the atrocious conduct of the leaders of the previous administration in regard to their involvement with the attempted insurrection of January 6th. I might add, I have utter disdain and disgust for any low life scum, seeking to justify their actions or those of the attackers or as some people call them, the domestic terrorists. If you support what went on that day, you are just as wrong and possibly just as dangerous to my country, though possibly too cowardly to take part in it at the time, or maybe your mommy or shift foreman wouldn't let you off, and you did not wish to devote vacation time, as it just wasn't important enough, except for posting on the internet.

 

[Samofvt]

Take it up with congress, as they passed the US Code, I listed and the Supremes, have so far been reasonably satisfied. You can argue your case before them. I can't help you and don't care to try. I am on the side of the American people wanting answers for the atrocious conduct of the leaders of the previous administration in regard to their involvement with the attempted insurrection of January 6th. I might add, I have utter disdain and disgust for any low life scum, seeking to justify their actions or those of the attackers or as some people call them, the domestic terrorists. If you support what went on that day, you are just as wrong and possibly just as dangerous to my country, though possibly too cowardly to take part in it at the time, or maybe your mommy or shift foreman wouldn't let you off, and you did not wish to devote vacation time, as it just wasn't important enough, except for posting on the internet.

Then why do you continue to refute the words written in the supreme law of the land: The Constitution of the United States of America? That document is accessible to all people, even those of modest intellectual capacity.

I support that document, and the ideals for which is stands. I will never allow those who would try to redirect from the real issues only to further their own selfish ideologies. Those interlopers that have been proven to be contrary to the well-being of the people.

 

[badbob85037]

Take it up with the Supreme Court. The law has been on the books a long, long time.

Wow someone knows the Constitution So why do you give Joe a free pass?

Since you are having difficulty with the laws of the land, I thought I would attach the pertinent information: The Constitution of the United States of America. Article I established the rules of the congress, Section 8 specifies *exactly* what powers congress shall have. Nowhere is there any language that suggests congress can investigate or hold trials for criminal offenses committed by American citizens.

These laws cannot be abridged by Congress. Furthermore, In Amendment V of the Amendments to the Constitution (aka the Bill of Rights), it states "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury...".

Go ahead and take a look at the 26 Amendments, but you will not find anything to support your claims. The laws you referred to earlier ONLY APPLY TO LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS, WHICH ARE STRICTLY LIMITED BY THE CONSTITUTION TO CREATING LAWS.

Congress is overstepping its constitutional authority. Period.

And if you think they wiLL LIFT A FINGER TO CHANGE IT DON;T HOLD TOUR BREATH, pass laws making insider trading legal pass a law to allow these tyrants to collect full pay to the day they die immune to sexual harassment laws, AND CAN ANYONE TELL ME WHY GOVERNMENT, only allowed to do 35 things to do 35 things why they over 2,000 agencies to do those 35 things and most of the time don't do those things and there is no traffic when it's a federal day off iF HELD TO THEIR OATH we would have a lot of tyrants being HUNG HIGH . aS LONG AS WE HAVE THESE THIS SHIT RUNNING THIS NATION WE HAVE NO FREEDOM OR RIGHTS SO HOW BOUT WE START GIVING THESE SHITS JUSTICE.

 

[White 6]

Then why do you continue to refute the words written in the supreme law of the land: The Constitution of the United States of America? That document is accessible to all people, even those of modest intellectual capacity.

I support that document, and the ideals for which is stands. I will never allow those who would try to redirect from the real issues only to further their own selfish ideologies. Those interlopers that have been proven to be contrary to the well-being of the people.

Like I said, you will have to take it up with them, as the House committee just voted to charge him with contempt. So now, it goes to the Justice Department, just like the law says. Maybe you'll feel better when it is the Justice Department making actual Federal Charges and scheduling his trial.

 

[White 6]

Wow someone knows the Constitution So why do you give Joe a free pass?

And if you think they wiLL LIFT A FINGER TO CHANGE IT DON;T HOLD TOUR BREATH, pass laws making insider trading legal pass a law to allow these tyrants to collect full pay to the day they die immune to sexual harassment laws, AND CAN ANYONE TELL ME WHY GOVERNMENT, only allowed to do 35 things to do 35 things why they over 2,000 agencies to do those 35 things and most of the time don't do those things and there is no traffic when it's a federal day off iF HELD TO THEIR OATH we would have a lot of tyrants being HUNG HIGH . aS LONG AS WE HAVE THESE THIS SHIT RUNNING THIS NATION WE HAVE NO FREEDOM OR RIGHTS SO HOW BOUT WE START GIVING THESE SHITS JUSTICE.

You really shouldn't smoke crack while trying to post. That last paragraph was a doozy.

 

[Care4all]

The executive branch is responsible for enforcing the laws of the land. Congress does not enforce the law, nor refer "cases" to the judicial branch.

Furthermore, they are performing a trial, any way you stack it. Again, it is not up to congress to collect evidence nor request evidence, nor publicly defame people who do not comply with their assumed (unconstitutional) requests.

Now, the guy very may well be guilty, I do not know. But it sure looks like the people who make the laws are conducting a trial and handing out sentences of imprisonment and other punishments.

Utter bull crap!

 

[Pellinore]

Sorry buddy. Congress is holding a trial, requesting evidence, handing out arrest warrants, and handing out punishments. There is no mistaking it.

These jobs belong to the Executive branch (find evidence and make arrests) and the Judicial branch (interpret what laws have been broken and provide punishments).

If this was for a non-American person, group, or power, then Yes, that would be congresses job because those do not qualify for the same rights afforded by our law of the land. they have no rights on our soil.

In this case, Congress is clearly overstepping its authority, as the accused is an American citizen. Congress appears to be using un-constitutional power to conduct politically motivated business. This is the VERY REASON our founders separated the three branches of government.

Crepitus is mostly right. This isn't a trial, it is an investigation, and they are allowed to call witnesses for that. They aren't "handing out arrest warrants"; they are reporting Meadows to the DOJ for having committed Contempt of Congress, which is a real crime in the US Code. The DOJ isn't *required* to press the charges, but they certainly will. His path will be similar to Bannon's: A team of DOJ attorneys (Executive Branch) will file the charges and prosecute the case, in front of a judge (Judicial Branch). Neither act will be performed by Congress.

You are correct that Congressional investigations are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, but they have been an accepted Parliamentary procedure since the beginning. The idea is that writing new laws sometimes requires investigation, so Congress can do so, as long as it has to do with making new laws. While it may seem like a stretch to see this investigation, or something like the Benghazi hearings, as info-gathering for some new law, all of the branches of the government (including the Judicial one) have traditionally given Congress a pretty long leash.

 

[Pellinore]

You do realize that what they're voting on is referring the case to the judicial branch, right?

They're referring it to the Department of Justice, which is part of the Executive Branch, but otherwise you are correct. They are not conducting a trial themselves.

 

[Samofvt]

Crepitus is mostly right. This isn't a trial, it is an investigation, and they are allowed to call witnesses for that. They aren't "handing out arrest warrants"; they are reporting Meadows to the DOJ for having committed Contempt of Congress, which is a real crime in the US Code. The DOJ isn't *required* to press the charges, but they certainly will. His path will be similar to Bannon's: A team of DOJ attorneys (Executive Branch) will file the charges and prosecute the case, in front of a judge (Judicial Branch). Neither act will be performed by Congress.

You are correct that Congressional investigations are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, but they have been an accepted Parliamentary procedure since the beginning. The idea is that writing new laws sometimes requires investigation, so Congress can do so, as long as it has to do with making new laws. While it may seem like a stretch to see this investigation, or something like the Benghazi hearings, as info-gathering for some new law, all of the branches of the government (including the Judicial one) have traditionally given Congress a pretty long leash.

I will have to go along with your opinion. The Constitution says in Article I, Section 8, paragraph 9, "To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;". Although this is generally accepted to mean "Establish Lower Courts", I can see where scholars may see this as an invitation to hold Ad-Hoc tribunals

[Tribunal: noun 1) a court or forum of justice 2) something that decides or determines]

This is something that needs to be addressed in the next iteration or preferably at the Convention of States, should it occur before Dissolution of States. (btw, any good deals in Texas? I may be moving soon)