I for one do not understand why the Congress and Senate pussy foot around the issues of the Obama administration and the corruption/arrogance to not comply with congressional investigations...ie: Subpoena/Warrants issued...They in fact have the authority to arrest Cabinet as well as Executive Branch members for non compliance with lawful subpoena/warrants issued by congress!
The U.S. Senate has constitutional authority to order the arrest of a Justice Department Official who ignores a Congressional subpoena. That question has been answered affirmatively in a number of Supreme Court decisions.
We find it interesting that history reveals a prior incident when Congress chose to investigate the Attorney General and the Justice Department, and the President would not assist in that investigation. The Justice Department would not force its officers to honor the Congressional Subpoena, so the Senate ordered its Sergeant at Arms to arrest the offending official and detain him. The District Court ordered the release of the official, and the Supreme Court overruled the District Court thereby upholding the right of Congress to arrest and detain executive branch officials for contempt of Congressional subpoenas.
A Kentucky Senator, John Crittenden, is quoted in this decision in support of the power of Congress to conduct investigations needed to support potential legislation. Crittenden and the Supreme Court opined that when Congress has a power, it has the tools to enforce that power, i.e. the power to arrest and detain anyone ignoring a Congressional subpoena.
In U.S. SUPREME COURT, MCGRAIN V. DAUGHERTY, 273 U.S. 135 (1927) the court concluded:
“We conclude that the investigation (OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND ATTORNEY GENERAL) was ordered for a legitimate object; that the witness wrongfully refused to appear and testify before the committee and was lawfully attached; that the Senate is entitled to have him give testimony pertinent to the inquiry, either at its bar or before the committee; and that the district court erred in discharging him from custody under the attachment.�?
Decided Jan. 17, 1927.
See Full Text of decision: http://news.lawreader.com/2007/08/01/supreme-court-rules-that-congress-can-arrest-and-detain-justice-department-official-who-ignores-subpoena/
Addendum:
During the mid-1920s, there were numerous allegations that the U.S. Justice department was being mismanaged by its administrator, Harry Daugherty, the attorney general of the United States. In response to the charges, the Senate passed a resolution that empowered an investigatory committee to hear evidence as to whether Daugherty failed to prosecute various violations of the antitrust laws. Mally S. Daugherty, who was a bank president as well as the brother of the attorney general, refused to respond to a subpoena that was issued by the committee on two occasions, ordering him to appear and to bring designated bank ledgers. The president pro tempore of the Senate issued a warrant to his sergeant at arms that Mally
Daugherty be taken into custody. A deputy of the sergeant at arms took Daugherty into custody in Cincinnati, Ohio. Daugherty brought a habeas corpus action for his release in federal district court in Ohio. The court declared that the attachment and detention of the witness was void on the ground that the Senate exceeded its powers in directing the investigation and in ordering the seizure of Daugherty. The deputy made a direct appeal to the Supreme Court, which accepted the case for review.
The Court defined two issues: whether the Senate or House of Representatives has authority to use its own process to compel a private person to appear as a witness and to testify before it or one of its committees in order that Congress can perform a legislative function that it has under the Constitution; and whether the process that was used in this case was directed toward that purpose. Before addressing those questions, however, the Court reviewed some of Daugherty's assertions. Daugherty argued that there was no statutory provision for a deputy and that even if there were, the deputy had no power to execute the warrant, since it was addressed to the sergeant at arms. The Court disagreed. It explained that deputies were authorized to act for the sergeant at arms by virtue of a standing order adopted by the Senate and that Congress recognized their status by establishing and making appropriations for their compensation.
Daugherty also used the Fourth Amendment provision that "no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation," to assert that the warrant was void because its basis was an unsworn committee report. The Court rejected this argument on the ground that the committee members were acting pursuant to their oath as Senators when they issued the warrant. When committee members act on matters within their knowledge, probable cause exists for the action of the committee. The warrant withstood constitutional muster.
Daugherty also claimed that the warrant was deficient because it stated that he be "brought before the bar of the Senate then and there" to testify. It was not a subpoena to appear before the Senate, nor did he refuse to do so. The Court dismissed this assertion, because it considered the warrant an auxiliary process used by the committee that was acting for the Senate to compel the witness to provide testimony sought by the subpoena.
The Court finally addressed the central issues of the case: the constitutional authority of the Senate to act in such a manner; and whether the warrant in this case was appropriate. It reasoned that while the power to investigate was not explicitly given to Congress by the Constitution, it was traditionally recognized as implicit in the legislative function since it is a means to obtain necessary information. The Court also referred to various federal laws that demonstrated that either house of Congress has the power to commence investigations and gather evidence concerning activities within its jurisdiction; that committees may conduct such investigations; that in order to fully implement the power to investigate, either house may punish uncooperative witnesses; and witnesses may be given immunity from criminal prosecutions that derive from their testimonies before the committees. Based upon tradition and statutes, the Court concluded that each house of Congress has auxiliary powers that are essential in order to effectuate its express powers, but neither house has unlimited "general" power to investigate private matters and force testimony. The Senate acted within its powers when it authorized a committee to investigate Daugherty. When the committee sought Daugherty's testimony, it was as a means to perform a legislative function since the purpose of the inquiry was to determine whether the attorney general and the Department of Justice—subjects of congressional regulations and appropriations—were properly performing their duties. The Court deemed that Daugherty's seizure and detention were appropriate because of his wrongful refusal to appear and testify before a lawful congressional committee. It reversed the order of the district court that released Daugherty from custody.
The Honorable Paul D. Irving was sworn in as the Sergeant at Arms of
the U.S. House of Representatives on January 17, 2012, during the 2nd
session of the 112th Congress. He is the thirty-sixth person to hold
this post since the House of Representatives first met in New York City
in 1789. Prior to this, Mr. Irving was an Assistant Director of the
U.S. Secret Service from 2001 to 2008, serving as a Special Agent with
the Secret Service for 25 years.
SUPREME COURT RULES THAT CONGRESS CAN ARREST AND DETAIN JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL WHO IGNORES SUBPOENA
By LawReader Senior Editor Stan BillingsleyThe U.S. Senate has constitutional authority to order the arrest of a Justice Department Official who ignores a Congressional subpoena. That question has been answered affirmatively in a number of Supreme Court decisions.
We find it interesting that history reveals a prior incident when Congress chose to investigate the Attorney General and the Justice Department, and the President would not assist in that investigation. The Justice Department would not force its officers to honor the Congressional Subpoena, so the Senate ordered its Sergeant at Arms to arrest the offending official and detain him. The District Court ordered the release of the official, and the Supreme Court overruled the District Court thereby upholding the right of Congress to arrest and detain executive branch officials for contempt of Congressional subpoenas.
A Kentucky Senator, John Crittenden, is quoted in this decision in support of the power of Congress to conduct investigations needed to support potential legislation. Crittenden and the Supreme Court opined that when Congress has a power, it has the tools to enforce that power, i.e. the power to arrest and detain anyone ignoring a Congressional subpoena.
In U.S. SUPREME COURT, MCGRAIN V. DAUGHERTY, 273 U.S. 135 (1927) the court concluded:
“We conclude that the investigation (OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND ATTORNEY GENERAL) was ordered for a legitimate object; that the witness wrongfully refused to appear and testify before the committee and was lawfully attached; that the Senate is entitled to have him give testimony pertinent to the inquiry, either at its bar or before the committee; and that the district court erred in discharging him from custody under the attachment.�?
U.S. Supreme Court
MCGRAIN v. DAUGHERTY, 273 U.S. 135 (1927)
273 U.S. 135
McGRAIN, Deputy Sergent at Arms of the United States Senate,
v.
DAUGHERTY.
No. 28.
Argued Dec. 5, 1924.v.
DAUGHERTY.
No. 28.
Decided Jan. 17, 1927.
See Full Text of decision: http://news.lawreader.com/2007/08/01/supreme-court-rules-that-congress-can-arrest-and-detain-justice-department-official-who-ignores-subpoena/
Addendum:
McGrain v. Daugherty
A landmark decision of the Supreme Court, McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 47 S.Ct. 319, 71 L.Ed. 580 (1927), recognized the implicit power of either House of Congress to hold a witness in a congressional investigation in contempt for a refusal to honor its summons or to respond to its questions.During the mid-1920s, there were numerous allegations that the U.S. Justice department was being mismanaged by its administrator, Harry Daugherty, the attorney general of the United States. In response to the charges, the Senate passed a resolution that empowered an investigatory committee to hear evidence as to whether Daugherty failed to prosecute various violations of the antitrust laws. Mally S. Daugherty, who was a bank president as well as the brother of the attorney general, refused to respond to a subpoena that was issued by the committee on two occasions, ordering him to appear and to bring designated bank ledgers. The president pro tempore of the Senate issued a warrant to his sergeant at arms that Mally
Daugherty be taken into custody. A deputy of the sergeant at arms took Daugherty into custody in Cincinnati, Ohio. Daugherty brought a habeas corpus action for his release in federal district court in Ohio. The court declared that the attachment and detention of the witness was void on the ground that the Senate exceeded its powers in directing the investigation and in ordering the seizure of Daugherty. The deputy made a direct appeal to the Supreme Court, which accepted the case for review.
The Court defined two issues: whether the Senate or House of Representatives has authority to use its own process to compel a private person to appear as a witness and to testify before it or one of its committees in order that Congress can perform a legislative function that it has under the Constitution; and whether the process that was used in this case was directed toward that purpose. Before addressing those questions, however, the Court reviewed some of Daugherty's assertions. Daugherty argued that there was no statutory provision for a deputy and that even if there were, the deputy had no power to execute the warrant, since it was addressed to the sergeant at arms. The Court disagreed. It explained that deputies were authorized to act for the sergeant at arms by virtue of a standing order adopted by the Senate and that Congress recognized their status by establishing and making appropriations for their compensation.
Daugherty also used the Fourth Amendment provision that "no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation," to assert that the warrant was void because its basis was an unsworn committee report. The Court rejected this argument on the ground that the committee members were acting pursuant to their oath as Senators when they issued the warrant. When committee members act on matters within their knowledge, probable cause exists for the action of the committee. The warrant withstood constitutional muster.
Daugherty also claimed that the warrant was deficient because it stated that he be "brought before the bar of the Senate then and there" to testify. It was not a subpoena to appear before the Senate, nor did he refuse to do so. The Court dismissed this assertion, because it considered the warrant an auxiliary process used by the committee that was acting for the Senate to compel the witness to provide testimony sought by the subpoena.
The Court finally addressed the central issues of the case: the constitutional authority of the Senate to act in such a manner; and whether the warrant in this case was appropriate. It reasoned that while the power to investigate was not explicitly given to Congress by the Constitution, it was traditionally recognized as implicit in the legislative function since it is a means to obtain necessary information. The Court also referred to various federal laws that demonstrated that either house of Congress has the power to commence investigations and gather evidence concerning activities within its jurisdiction; that committees may conduct such investigations; that in order to fully implement the power to investigate, either house may punish uncooperative witnesses; and witnesses may be given immunity from criminal prosecutions that derive from their testimonies before the committees. Based upon tradition and statutes, the Court concluded that each house of Congress has auxiliary powers that are essential in order to effectuate its express powers, but neither house has unlimited "general" power to investigate private matters and force testimony. The Senate acted within its powers when it authorized a committee to investigate Daugherty. When the committee sought Daugherty's testimony, it was as a means to perform a legislative function since the purpose of the inquiry was to determine whether the attorney general and the Department of Justice—subjects of congressional regulations and appropriations—were properly performing their duties. The Court deemed that Daugherty's seizure and detention were appropriate because of his wrongful refusal to appear and testify before a lawful congressional committee. It reversed the order of the district court that released Daugherty from custody.
As soon as people think broadcast they assume it’s going to be expensive.
ReplyDeleteidaho dui lawyer