House should pursue inherent contempt

[FourScore]

Press reslease from Common Cause

House should pursue inherent contempt

The House Judiciary Committee today voted 20-14 to find Karl Rove in contempt for ignoring a committee subpoena. However, the contempt resolution the Committee passed today is different from the contempt citations issued against White House chief of staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers.

The citation passed today includes language stating that the House of Representatives should pursue enforcing the subpoena through other legal remedies as appropriate, leaving the door open for the House to exercise its power of "inherent contempt."

"If the Judiciary Committee truly wants to hear what Rove knows, it should pursue every option available to it to compel his testimony," said Common Cause President Bob Edgar. "Congress cannot carry out its Constitutional oversight responsibility if it cannot compel witnesses to come before it and tell the truth when subpoenaed."

Under the inherent contempt power, the House Sergeant-at-Arms has the authority to take Karl Rove into custody and bring him to the House where his contempt case can be tried, presumably, by a standing or select committee. If he is found by the House to be in Contempt of Congress, he can be imprisoned for an amount of time determined by the House (not to exceed the term of the 110th Congress which ends the beginning of January 2009) or until he agrees to testify.

The Supreme Court has recognized the power of the House to enforce its own subpoenas through the inherent contempt provision, stating that without it, Congress "would be exposed to every indignity and interruption that rudeness, caprice or even conspiracy may mediate against it." Before Congress asked the Justice Department to try contempt cases on its behalf, the inherent contempt power was used more than 85 times between 1795 and 1934, mostly to compel testimony and documents.


http://www.commoncause.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=194883&ct=5747399

[babylonsister]

1. YES! It has to get by Pelosi first. If she denies this, I don't know why. nt

[Imagevision]

2. If it has to go thru Pelosi, may as well forget about that unless Kucinich makes waves!

[BlooInBloo]

3. hahaha - it's funny how people are finally starting to talk about IC...

Kos people have been screaming about it for well over a year now.

[FourScore]

4. I've seen quite a bit of talk about it here as well.

Maybe you're confusing members of DU with members of Congress. They're namely the ones who act like they've never heard of it before.

[DCKit]

5. Yeah, I get the impression that IC support has been pretty strong here...

since he first started playing Congress.

I'd take a real frog-march pic of Kkkarl over the photo-shopped one any day. Especially if there were more (many, many more) to follow.

I had a discussion a few weeks ago about how many non-violent drug offenders we'd have to release to make room for all the treasonous lowlifes we've been subjected to over the past eight years. It turns out we'd have to decriminalize marijuana in order to have that much space available. It's win-win no matter how you look at it.

[MonkeyFunk]

6. Yes, I think they should try

there's an unresolved consitutional issue involved. Now's as good a time as any to test it.

[Wizard777]

7. Oh Hell Yes!

[clear eye]

8. Thanks. K&R n/t

[clear eye]

9. Common Cause Presses for Inherent Contempt

The mainstream liberal organization, Common Cause, which has been putting a priority on their election reform work the last few years, has signed on to the call for inherent contempt. Common Cause volunteers have monitored elections since 2002, so they saw firsthand the consequences of Rove's criminality.

Although the power was last used in 1934, it was used ~85 times before that. It's a perfectly legitimate procedure given to insure the legitimate authority of our elected Congress.