Congressional option-Inherent contempt

[napi21]

Under this process, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited for contempt is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subject to punishment that the House may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release from the contempt citation.)

Concerned with the time-consuming nature of a contempt proceeding and the inability to extend punishment further than the session of the Congress concerned (under Supreme Court rulings), Congress created a statutory process in 1857. While Congress retains its "inherent contempt" authority and may exercise it at any time, this inherent contempt process was last used by the Senate in 1934, against the Postmaster-General. After a one-week trial in the Senate floor (presided by the Vice-President of the United States, acting as Senate President), the Postmaster-General was found guilty and sentenced to 10 days imprisonment.

The Postmaster General had filed a petition of Habeas Corpus in federal courts to overturn his arrest, but after litigation, the US Supreme Court ruled that Congress had acted constitutionally, and denied the petition in the case Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125 (1945). <1>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

This precedure only requires a majority vote NOT THE 2/3rds or 60 vote super majority!

Instead of holding ANY of these uncooperative witnesses in Contempt of Congress, there is this seldom used law, that HAS BEEN CONFIRMED by the SCOTUS!

I say CONTACT your congressman and Senators and tell them to use it!

I wish I could take credit for getting this info, but the credit goes to a caller on Randy's show!

[papau]

1. WOW - I like it! :-)

:-)

[napi21]

3. John Dean was also on Randy's show and mentioned this. He said

it was a very rarely used statute. I think the last time it was used was in the 1930's, but it's a way that doesn't require the involvement of the DOJ or a supermajority in either house of Congress!

The caller said she has been sending this info to her Representative and Senators, and to everyone on the Judicial committees. I think we should all join her and do the same!!!!

[papau]

6. I agree - it is time for a note to my districts Rep and State Senators! n/t

n/t

[napi21]

7. Here is a reference you should use.

28 U.S.C. § 1365

That's is the law reference info.

Also see this link. Leahey is well aware of it!

http://judiciary.senate.gov/oldsite/5182000_pjl8.htm

[cui bono]

8. Um... if this is how it has to work then we're screwed

Unlike the impeachment trial, which was presided over by the Chief Justice, the Senate’s last contempt trial was presided over by Vice President John Nance Garner. The Vice President also swore in all witnesses, who appeared in before the Senate and testified in the well of the Senate. Members of the special committee and the respondents and their counsels were given desks and seats in the well of the Senate. Senators with questions, who were not members of the special committee, had to submit their questions in writing to the Vice President, who had the clerk read the questions to each witness. The Vice President ruled on any objection to a question if raised. Counsels for the respondents and the Senators from the special committee could examine, cross-examine and re-examine witnesses.

[papau]

9. I believe the poster is referring to a HOUSE contempt process where the VP has no status or power n/

n/t

[cui bono]

11. Yes, the house would be doing it this time, that's true. The poster's link however

provided what I posted. I was responding to that. I should've caught that it wasn't about the house. Thanks for pointing that out.

[drm604]

10. Leahey may be aware of it,

but he doesn't seem to think much of it.

The only recourse available to us, were we to proceed down this foolish road, is to hold a trial on the Senate floor under our “inherent contempt authority.” I hope that reasonable minds prevail and that we do not see again such an embarrassing spectacle.

[napi21]

12. Yes I did post the link, but remember, Leahey is a SENATOR!

He would have been looking at this from, the Senate point of view. I really think this could work in the House!

[drm604]

2. K&R

:kick:

[Wiley50]

4. Can Smirky Issue a Pardon in this Action?

or only in a criminal proceeding?

[napi21]

5. As far as I know, a Prez can issue a pardon for anyone and any offense.

I don't care about that though. I want to see "A LAW" pin these people down! Sure I'd like to see some prison time, but if I can't get that, I can live with just having a bunch of people charged, tried & convicted! The Lingering damage to the people, the Pub Party, and this Admin. would be payback enough for ME!

[creeksneakers2]

13. I love this idea

Bush pardoned Libby so it will be easy to tag Bush as somebody who has put himself above the law. Bush will probably go batshit and cause a constitutional crisis which could lead to his impeachment. We'd have none of the potential problems a premature impeachment could bring.

[Wiley50]

14. K and R