http://www.house.gov/rules/95-464.htm
Note that nowhere does it say the executive branch can find a witness in contempt of congress sua sponte. (Sua Sponte means on its own in Latin.)
(1) Inherent Contempt
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 in the Capitol jail. 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 end of the Congress) until he agrees to comply. When a witness is cited for contempt under the inherent contempt process, prompt judicial review is available by means of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In an inherent contempt proceeding, although Congress would not have to afford the contemnor the whole panoply of procedural rights available to a defendant in a criminal case, notice and an opportunity to be heard would have to be granted. Also, some of the requirements imposed by the courts under the statutory criminal contempt procedure might be mandated by the due process clause in the case of inherent contempt proceedings.(70)
The inherent contempt power has not been exercised by either House in over sixty years because it has been considered to be too cumbersome and time consuming for a modern Congress with a heavy legislative workload that would be interrupted by a trial at the bar.
(2) Statutory Contempt
Recognizing the problems with use of the inherent contempt process, a statutory criminal contempt procedure was enacted in 1857 which, with only minor amendments, is codified today at 2 U.S.C. §§192 and 194. Under 2 U.S.C. § 192, a person who has been subpoenaed to testify or produce documents before the House or Senate or a committee and who fails to do so, or who appears but refuses to respond to questions, is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 and imprisonment for up to one year. Section 194 establishes the procedure to be followed if the House or Senate refers a witness to the courts for criminal prosecution. A contempt citation must be approved by the subcommittee, the full committee, and the full House or Senate (or by the presiding officer if Congress is not in session). The criminal procedure is punitive in nature. It is not coercive because a witness generally will not be able to purge himself by testifying or supplying subpoenaed documents after he has been voted in contempt by the committee and the House or the Senate. Under the statute, after a contempt has been certified by the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House, it is the "duty" of the U.S. Attorney "to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action." It remains unclear whether the "duty" of the U.S. Attorney to present the contempt to the grand jury is mandatory or discretionary, since the sparse case law that is relevant to the question provides conflicting guidance.(71)
This potential conflict between the statutory language of §194 and the U.S. Attorney's prosecutorial discretion was highlighted by the inability of the House of Representatives in 1982 to secure a contempt prosecution against the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Ann Burford. Burford, at the direction of President Reagan, had asserted executive privilege as grounds for refusing to respond to a subpoena demand for documents. She was cited for contempt by the full House and the contempt resolution was certified by the Speaker and forwarded to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia for presentment to the grand jury. Relying on his prosecutorial discretion he deferred doing so.
The Burford controversy may be seen as unusual, involving highly sensitive political issues of the time. In the vast majority of cases there is likely to be no conflict between the interests of the two political branches, and the U.S. Attorney can be expected to initiate prosecution in accordance with § 194.
(3) Civil Contempt
As an alternative to both the inherent contempt power of each House and criminal contempt, Congress enacted a civil contempt procedure which is applicable only to the Senate.(72) Upon application of the Senate,(73) the federal district court is to issue an order to a person refusing, or threatening to refuse, to comply with a Senate subpoena. If the individual still refuses to comply, he may be tried by the court in summary proceedings for contempt of court, with sanctions being imposed to coerce his compliance. Civil contempt might be employed when the Senate is more concerned with securing compliance with the subpoena or with clarifying legal issues than with punishing the contemnor. Civil contempt can be more expeditious than a criminal proceeding and it also provides an element of flexibility, allowing the subpoenaed party to test his legal defenses in court without necessarily risking a criminal prosecution. Civil contempt is not authorized for use against executive branch officials refusing to comply with a subpoena.
Give me minute or two.
A representative of the House Government Reform Committee was en route to Florida from Washington, D.C., late Friday morning to deliver the subpoenas. The U.S. Marshal's Service has the legal authority to enforce the subpoenas and to arrest any person who attempts to interfere with their execution or to harm or kill a subpoenaed witness or, in any other way, prevent Congress from taking their testimony.
Article Quick, who wrote this:
Congress does have subpoena power pursuant to its investigative authority. The matter that they wish to investigate sub judice, is the long term care of incapacitated adults. Being a small government kind of guy, I don't believe they have the constitutional authority to investigate that issue. However, since all meaning of the Constituiton has been obliterated, Congress was probably correct in issuing them.
Once these subpoenas were issued, they have the force of law. No one can interfere with Terri Schiavo testifying at this hearing on March 28. Judge Greer did that by ordering the feeding tube removed. And in his Order, essentially thumbing his nose at Congress.
The proper procedure in this matter would have been for Michael Schiavo to go to US Distrcit Court for the Middle District of Florida and file a motion to quash the subpoenas for the reasons I articulated above. He failed to do so, I see that Congress has little choice but to enforce the subpoena. This is done by the President of the Senate or Speaker of the House authorizing a resolution finding Greer, Michael Schiavo and the medical personnel at the hospicce who removed her feeding tube in contempt of congress. The US Attorney for the WD of Florida could then and should prosecute.
a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1366013/posts?page=123#123">Big Easy Big Easy is on the right track. The mistake he is making is that the President need not wait for congress to refer a matter out to stop a crime from being committed. A criminal prosecution starts with an indictment being filed, but the FBI or a policeman can stop the crime without there having been an indictment first.
Also, in addition to Congress' ability to refer out a contempt citation under 2 USC 192, there is another federal statute that makes it a crime to interfere with the subpoena. That is the statute referred to in the above article. I read it at the time this subpoena was issued, and it lists several different ways that the interference can occur.
Keep researching, bigeasy. Your heart is in the right place.