Inherent Contempt Outlined (FYI)

[bigtree]

from the Congressional Research Service's 'Congressional Oversight Manual' : http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30240.pdf


Under the inherent contempt power, the individual is brought before the House
or Senate by the Sergeant-at-Arms, tried at the bar of the body, and can be
imprisoned. The purpose of the imprisonment or other sanction may be either
punitive or coercive. Thus, the witness can be imprisoned for a specified period of time as punishment, or for an indefinite period (but not, at least in the case of the House, beyond the adjournment of a session of the Congress) until he agrees to comply. The inherent contempt power has been recognized by the Supreme Court as inextricably related to Congress’s constitutionally-based power to investigate.

Between 1795 and 1934 the House and Senate utilized the inherent contempt power over 85 times, in most instances to obtain (successfully) testimony and/or documents. The inherent contempt power has not been exercised by either House in over 70 years. This appears to be because it has been considered too cumbersome and time-consuming to hold contempt trials at the bar of the offended chamber. Moreover, some have argued that the procedure is ineffective because punishment can not extend beyond Congress’s adjournment date.

[TahitiNut]

1. (GMTA?) See ...

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/TahitiNut/397

[bigtree]

2. I wonder what course Conyers will choose?

I can see a benefit in pressing for Statutory Criminal Contempt, if just to set parameters for the proper response of the U.S. Attorney to assertions of Executive privilege. "Duty" to “bring the matter before the grand jury for its action,”seems clear enough for me.

[annabanana]

3. Thanks TN.. I was looking for this info earlier...

I have some delicious images of the Sargent at Arms dragging recalcitrant witnesses into some subterranean dungeon beneath the Capitol Dome. Just because it hasn't been used for a while doesn't mean it shouldn't be. Perhaps there hasn't been a need for it since the '30's.

[LiberalFighter]

4. some have argued that the procedure is ineffective

What do they base that on?

Certainly not when it had been used over 85 times apparently successfully. Successfully means it worked.

So what if it can't extend beyond the session. If the person wants to be in contempt they should also consider if they want to go through it again when the next session convenes. Especially knowing that both houses will probably be in control of the Democrats again.

[bigtree]

5. I wonder how prepared the U.S. marshal is to pursue these folks

over state lines and jurisdictions compared to when IC was a matter of course.