Does or does not the U.S. House of Representatives have "inherent contempt power"? At one

[Atticus]

time they did.

If they do not still have the power to arrest and try those who defy their subpoenas, when and how did they lose it?

[rainy]

1. Susan McDougal went to jail for

not showing up for a subpoena. Who enforced that?

[Magoo48]

2. Apparently, not one of our many enforcement agencies has the courage to uphold the law.

And, more agitating is we the people pay these do-nothing fuckers for hiding out.

[Mr.Bill]

6. Her subpoena was

from a Grand Jury, not Congress.

[Nevilledog]

9. Beat me to it

[Fiendish Thingy]

8. MAcDougal was jailed for contempt of COURT, not contempt of CONGRESS

Big difference, enforcement-wise.

[Ohio Joe]

3. As best I understand it...

And I’m not going to swear this is 100% but… They have three types of contempt at their disposal, civil, criminal and inherent. Civil and criminal were created with the intent of replacing inherent but inherent never got retired. It is still there but has not been used since the early 1900’s. I suspect an attempt to use it would start a protracted court battle.

Honestly… I think they should do it. Grab the fucks and drag them before congress… Let them cry lawyer and let them go. Take the press tour, make the election commercials and paint them as cowards hiding shit… Then show the shit they have been hiding at the public hearings… Let them cry foul all they want, fuckin-a, offer them another chance to go on record and watch them lawyer up again… Keep at them with ‘come tell your side under oath’.

That’s what I’d do.

[H2O Man]

5. Yes.

[Joinfortmill]

7. I like that

[Fiendish Thingy]

10. But Inherent Contempt is the only form of contempt that congress itself can enforce

Civil and Criminal contempt require due process through the judicial and executive (DOJ) branches.

[Bluethroughu]

11. Sounds good to me.