« Impeachment Matters | Main | Sunday Night Conchords Blogging »
July 09, 2007
Inherent Contempt
by Nicholas Beaudrot of Electoral Math
In response to my questions about contempt of Congress proceedings, commenters noted that Congress does have the power, presumably by majority vote of a Committee or a whole Chamber, to declare someone in "inherent contempt" and direct the Congressional Seargant-at-Arms to arrest someone. Presumably political considerations should keep Congress from exercising this power willy-nilly, but it seems to have held up as a constitutional procedure. If Sara Taylor, a former executive branch employee, is now trying to get out of testifying because she might have to say bad things about George W. Bush, who she thinks is a really really great guy, then tough cookies. Subpoena translates to "under pain" for a reason; it's not going to pleasant spitting out the truth, but let's get on with it.
July 9, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
Inherent contempt requires only a committee vote and a simple majority, IIRC. It's statutory contempt that requires a full chamber - according to Leahy a week ago that would require both chambers but I haven't seen anything that confirms that.
Leahy was talking about it in terms of holding Bush and Cheney in contempt. Certainly it would be easier to hold one of Bush's many, many BFFs in contempt than going after him.
Posted by: Stephen | Jul 9, 2007 9:46:42 AM
PLEASE MOVE WITH ALL SPEED TO USE YOUR POWERS FOR PROCEEDING TO INHERENT CONTEMPT AGAINST ANY AND ALL OF THOSE WITNESSES WHO CONTINUE TO THUMB THEIR NOSES AT YOUR COMMITTEES IN CONGRESS. THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR PERMITTING OUR CONSTITUTION TO BE SHREDDED BY THE ADMINISTRATION.
Posted by: JEFFREY KRAVAT | Jul 11, 2007 5:41:51 PM
If this is so, than it is conceivable that they can also be held without counsel under the "Patriot Act" and possibly be seen an enemy combatants to the United States. It is apparent that "Caging" was the motive and possibly still are and that would be a "War on Terror" during the times of war. If that is correct then the President would have to end his quest on "War on Terror" in order to use Executive Privilege to institute a stay in Congress' order. Not a legal scholar but it does appear that the dots do connect judicially speaking.
It is imperative that this happens as the African American/Black Vote is in shackles and 150,000 feet below the sea level.
Posted by: Roger Morris | Jul 11, 2007 6:05:04 PM
The "inherent contempt" charge would have to be held to the House. Cheney would preside over a trial in the Senate.
Can they keep it to just the House? I don't know enough about this.
Posted by: Alex | Jul 12, 2007 12:52:46 PM
Inherent Contempt, last used in 1934, involves only the chamber concerned.
Posted by: Michael | Jul 12, 2007 1:29:55 PM
Inherent contempt can be invoked by EITHER house, but since this is happening in the House, we can keep it there. Start with Harriet ... and DON'T STOP TIL THE FUN STOPS!
Posted by: Gogi | Jul 12, 2007 2:53:20 PM
Information on Inherent Contempt may be found in Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress
Posted by: Charles | Jul 13, 2007 2:05:25 AM
Remember what you sow you shall reap.
If Bush and his adminsitration can be found in inherent contempt just think of the Clinton Regime and all the secrets it would have had to spill. And if this goes one way then surely the White House can go after Democrats who are trying to undermine the administrations authority to conduct war, and hold a number of Democrats in contempt for obstruction of justice.
So be careful about what you sow, you will reap it.
Posted by: Karl Machschefes | Jul 13, 2007 8:37:55 PM
I say any politician guilty of any crime should be procecuted, Is this citizen realy advocating don't hang our crooks and we won't hang yours. What a sad state of affairs. Please would someone tell Bill Clinton to stop touching the neo-cons.
Remember what you sow you shall reap.
If Bush and his adminsitration can be found in inherent contempt just think of the Clinton Regime and all the secrets it would have had to spill. And if this goes one way then surely the White House can go after Democrats who are trying to undermine the administrations authority to conduct war, and hold a number of Democrats in contempt for obstruction of justice.
So be careful about what you sow, you will reap it.
Posted by: DAmian Brumley | Jul 17, 2007 5:06:44 PM
Posted by: ray taliaferro | Jul 18, 2007 2:20:40 AM
Inherent Contempt appears to be just a hope since this Democratic majority sees a need to play chicken with a mad-man. Every thing they have done appears to be intent on presenting a weak persona. This would be great to see them take a little strength to bear on their responsibilities and become effective instead of trying to be like those who hold them and the Constitution in contempt. The clock is running.
Bob
Posted by: Bob Phelps | Jul 18, 2007 9:42:00 PM
What are the Democrats afraid of? They've got the votes in the house to pull it off, no matter how loud the administration pigs squeal. Are they afraid that after actually DOING something Bush's numbers will suddenly bounce back up to where they were right after 9/11? And even if that happens, so what? Are voters going to do a 180 in the next election because some neocon fasist felons and boot lickers got nailed for failing to tell the truth? I don't think so.
Posted by: John Palcewski | Jul 20, 2007 8:49:04 AM
I say the government should be afraid of the people, not the other way around.
Posted by: Marko | Jul 21, 2007 10:42:05 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.