Does Anyone know

[cali]

what happens if the repukes stonewall in the face of subpoenas? Can, for instance, Gonzo be impeached for refusing to turn over information under subpoena? Does anyone know any historical parallels?

[rock]

1. Isn't a subpoena authorized by a judge?

What happens when you piss off a judge by showing contempt?

[cali]

4. Congress has subpoena power

or rather the majority has that power. I believe- and I know someone will correct me if I'm wrong- that it takes a majority on a given committee to vote to issue a subpoena. There's one committee in the House, I believe, where the chairman himself has that power.

[Cooley Hurd]

5. If the WH refuses to hand over anything ordered via supoena...

...doesn't it HAVE to be enforced enforced by the Justice Dept (i.e. the FBI seixes the docs in question)?:shrug:

[rock]

9. Then can Congress swear out a warrant

and have it signed by a judge for non-compliance?

[TayTay]

2. We willl have a Constitutional stand-off

This is a contest about power. If the Congress stands it's ground and argues for it's supremacy in matters of investigation and oversight, then they can refuse to cooperate with the executive branch on what needs to be done in government. If they are serious about this stand-off, they can refuse to cooperate with the Executive branch until they get what they want. This would mean not acting on appointments, bills, funds, etc.

The last big Constitutional stand-off was when the Repubs took the Congress and they had a show-down over spending with Pres. Clinton. Congress lost that that battle, btw.

[SheilaT]

3. For ordinary people

ignoring subpoenas are a contempt of court thing and can result in being jailed.

[H2O Man]

6. Goes to court.

The best examples of this are found in the Nixon era. Or look at Cheney's energy meetings. The executive branch tends to try to resist subpoenas from the legislative branch. The Congress then goes to the federal courts. The subpoenas that have historically been recognized as beyond question are those associated with impeachment-related investigations.

Schlesinger's book (The Imperial Presidency) provides fascinating documentation.

[cali]

7. Thanks H2O man.

It'll be fascinating to see what the SC does with this. And thanks for the book rec.

[in_cog_ni_to]

8. self deleted

[seriousstan]

10. They can subpoena but they have no power of enforcement

But Congress is not the executive branch. Nor is it the judicial. Its independent enforcement powers are limited to only the most obscure and archaic procedure -- "inherent contempt" -- which hasn't been exercised since 1935, and with good reason: this procedure itself requires a trial before Congress. Not a particularly helpful substitute when you're trying to avoid a trial before Congress in the first place.

Instead, Congress depends for its enforcement powers on the executive branch. If you defy a Congressional subpoena, you face the possibility of charges of contempt of Congress, pursuant to the adoption of articles by whichever house is charging you. But those charges are not self-executing. In other words, they're a request that charges be brought. In order to be effective, those charges still have to be prosecuted in court, and that's up to the discretion of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. He's an employee of the "unitary executive," of course, and reports to the Attorney General.


http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/8/1227/78438