Posted on 03/23/2005 9:37:12 AM PST by xzins
U.S. Code as of: 01/06/03
Section 1505. Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees
Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so; or
Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress -
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
In other words, it's a crime to obstruct a congressional inquiry by harming a witness, punishable by 5 years in jail. The president, as chief law enforcement officer of the land, has the power to enforce this LAW by preventing it from being broken. In addition, if the Congress wants to find a witness in contempt by referring it to the US Atty, of course, they always can, but in the Schiavo case, this is a more expeditious way to perform the executive function.
EITHER mister Bush could STABILIZE her with an I-V for the few days it takes this matter of the feeding tube, and the motions to allow FEEDING BY MOUTH to run the gammet thru the supreme court.
Both Bushes have raised in the last hour and hinted they will call SCOTUS. SCOTUS now has to decide whether they will cut their losses and reverse and stay or call the Bush's bluff and throw Marbury v. Madison into the pot.
The last player to call a Bush bluff was Saddam Hussein.
Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication
Where has Greer done this? He simply issued an Order stating the Subpoenas changed nothing and did not affect his ruling. So, he hasn't communicated his obstruction in any manner.
the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress -
Did you fail to read the "due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry". First, the law that I cite for a contempt of congress finding is not inconsistent with that language. Second, Greer in his Order states that the subpoenas were not a due and proper exercise of the House's power of inquiry.
A crime, in this case, has not occurred until Congress passes the contempt resolution. Until they do so, I stand by my statement that the President cannot enforce the subpoenas.
Clearly, you are not an attorney, and one of those laypeople who knows just enough to be dangerous. Had you any legal expertise, you would know that "threat" includes any attempt to influence conduct in derogation of the subpoena, without actually taking the action, while "force" would include any over act that prevents the witness from testifying, such as removing the feeding tube and killing them.
Greer is not the only one subject to the law. Basically, the marshall can go and take custody of the witness, and anyone who interferes then can be arrested. Like the kids who were arrested today for trying to take water to Terri.
Not a due and proper exercise of congressional inquiry, is that what you are arguing now? Please, give it a rest. I specified, in logical progression, the source for congress' right to subpoena Terri and the other witnesses. If you don't think Congress has the right to conduct review of state health care procedures as part of its legislative responsibilities, or review the due process rights of a citizen under the 14th Amendment, you are way out to lunch.
There was a state judge supporting George Wallace on the schoolhouse steps, too. Federal authority reigned supreme then, because the 14th Amendment trumped the state, and federal authority trumps some pissant state judge when Congress has issued a valid subpoena to a witness in a lawful congressional inquiry. Keep fighting it, you will still be wrong. Now, wrong and stubborn.
What happens when President Hillary (or somesuch) decides to use an Executive Order to indefinately postpone lawful executions?
As I said before, you undoubtedly mean well, and if you care about Terri's fate, you will not continue to spread the notion that the President can't act to enforce the subpoena unless there is a Congressional referral. He can.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.