Posted on 07/09/2007 1:20:42 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - Congress and the White House appear headed for a showdown over President Bush's decision to invoke executive privilege to deny documents to House and Senate committees and prevent former aides from testifying about the firing of U.S. attorneys.
Lawmakers, in turn, have threatened to hold subpoenaed officials in contempt of Congress.
Here are some questions and answers about the contempt of Congress process:
Q: What is contempt of Congress, and why would Congress want to use this power?
A: Congress can hold a person in contempt if that person obstructs proceedings or an inquiry by a congressional committee. Congress has used contempt citations for two main reasons: (1) to punish someone for refusing to testify or refusing to provide documents or answers, and (2) for bribing or libeling a member of Congress.
Q: Where in the Constitution does it say Congress can hold someone in contempt for not testifying?
A: It's not in the Constitution. It is an implied power of Congress, just like executive privilege is an implied power of the presidency.
Q: Is there any legal underpinning for a contempt of Congress citation?
A: Yes. The Supreme Court said as early as 1821 that without the power to hold people in contempt of Congress, the legislative branch would be "exposed to every indignity and interruption that rudeness, caprice, or even conspiracy, may mediate against it."
Q: What is the process for holding someone in contempt of Congress?
A: The procedure can start in either the House or the Senate. The two chambers do not work together on contempt citations. It only takes one chamber to refer a person to be prosecuted for contempt. A contempt citation can start with a subcommittee, a full committee or in the full House or Senate.
If it starts at the committee level and a person refuses to comply with a committee subpoena, the committee has to vote to move a criminal contempt citation forward. It takes a majority vote for the citation to move to the full House or Senate.
Q: What happens next?
A: Once the full House or Senate has a contempt citation, it must be debated by the full chamber like any other resolution. It is subject to the same filibuster and procedural rules as any other House or Senate resolution. It takes a majority vote to be approved.
Once approved, the House speaker or the Senate president pro tem then turns the matter over to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, "whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action," according to the law.
Q: Is the U.S. attorney required to prosecute?
A: Depends on whom you ask. The law says the U.S. attorney "shall" bring the matter to a grand jury.
However, the House voted 259-105 in 1982 for a contempt citation against EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch but the Reagan-era Justice Department refused to prosecute the case.
The Justice Department also sued the House of Representatives, saying its attempt to force Gorsuch to turn over documents interfered with the executive branch. The court threw the case out and urged negotiation between the executive and the legislative branches. The Justice Department did not appeal the ruling, and the Reagan administration eventually agreed to turn over the documents.
Q: When was the last time a contempt of Congress citation was brought to the House or the Senate floor?
A: The last contempt of Congress prosecution was of former Environmental Protection Agency official Rita Lavelle in 1983. The House voted 413-0 to cite her for contempt of Congress for refusing to appear before a House committee. Lavelle was later acquitted in court of the contempt charge, but was convicted of perjury in a separate trial.
Q: What is the punishment upon conviction for contempt of Congress?
A: Contempt of Congress is a federal misdemeanor, punishable by a maximum $100,000 fine and a maximum one-year sentence in federal prison.
Q: Is the contempt of Congress power used often in fights between the legislative branch and the executive branch?
A: Since 1975, 10 Cabinet level or senior executive officials have been cited for contempt for failure to produce subpoenaed documents. The 10 officials are Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Commerce Secretary Rogers C. B. Morton in 1975; Health, Education, and Welfare Secretary Joseph A. Califano, Jr., in 1978; Energy Secretary Charles Duncan in 1980; Energy Secretary James B. Edwards in 1981; Interior Secretary James Watt in 1982; EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch, known as Anne Gorsuch Burford after a 1983 marriage, and Attorney General William French Smith in 1983; White House Counsel John M. Quinn in 1996; and Attorney General Janet Reno in 1998.
The White House and Congress came to negotiated agreements in each case before criminal proceedings could begin.
Q: Does the president's executive privilege trump Congress' contempt citation?
A: That's the big question that both sides really don't want answered. In the past, neither side has been willing to let the matter go up to the Supreme Court for fear that their side would lose.
If Congress loses, then it would have a hard time investigating future presidents, Republican and Democrat. If the White House loses, the current president and future ones can expect numerous requests from a reinvigorated Congress, whether controlled by the Democrats or Republicans.
Q: Is there anything the president can do once someone has been convicted of contempt of Congress?
A: Contempt of Congress is a federal crime like any other. The sitting president has the authority as chief executive to commute or pardon anyone of any federal crime.
___
Sources: Congressional Research Service, Senate Judiciary Committee, Associated Press interviews.
--
What a lot of Americans have a whole bunch of lately..
I have nothing but contempt for Congress.
“What is contempt of Congress”
I have it! Is that wrong?
It’s an extreme form of BDS. Hopefully some heads will explode along the way.
It's what I feel dang near EVERY DAY.
Does that mean that one is held in contempt by Congress, or that one has contempt for Congress?
In my case, the level of the latter is tied directly to the level of the former.
A favor given to a governing body which is beneath contempt.
We melted their phones. Does that count ?
I could be indicted for the contempt I have for both sides
It's....nah, way too easy!
POS congress. They’re getting paid for this BS!!
I’ve got a fever — and the only prescription, is more Cowbell!
So.. where’s the charges against “leaky Leahey” and “Schumer’s Plummers” ???
Anout 75% of this country has nothing but comtempt for this Congress. Their approvoal rating is lower than a potbellied pigs belly.
“Q: Where in the Constitution does it say Congress can hold someone in contempt for not testifying?
A: It’s not in the Constitution. It is an implied power of Congress, just like executive privilege is an implied power of the presidency.”
Executive Privilege is in the constitution under the separation of powers whereas contempt is a legal action.
Asked by host George Stephanopoulos if “that means holding the White House in contempt of Congress?” “Well, yes,” Conyers responded. “It means moving forward in the process that would require him to comply with the subpoenas like most other people.”
Transcript:
CONYERS: But what we have here — and I think we should put it on the table right at the beginning — is that the suspicion was that if Mr. Libby went to prison, he might further implicate other people in the White House, and that there was some kind of relationship here that does not exist in any of President Clinton’s pardons, nor, according to those that we’ve talked to — and this is why we’re doing the hearings — is that it’s never existed before, ever.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So it’s really…
CONYERS: We’ve never had…
STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me stop you there, because you seem to be suggesting that President Bush commuted Mr. Libby’s sentence in order to keep him quiet.
CONYERS: Well, that’s — I said that’s what the general impression is. And what we’re trying to do — and this is why we’ve written the president, inviting him to do what President Clinton did, and namely to bring forward any of his pardon lawyers or anyone that can put a clear light on this and put this kind of feeling that is fairly general to rest. That’s the whole purpose.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So you’re asking him to waive executive privilege.
CONYERS: Yes. And that’s what Clinton did. Yes, we’re asking him to waive executive privilege and allow his pardon lawyers or other experts, who it appears that he did not consult, explain this in a little more detail.
So, what we’re saying, Mr. Stephanopoulos, is that there wasn’t any pardons that have involved a person who was a former chief of staff to the vice president of the United States that got a commutation. Commutations usually follow after a person has served some period of time. And of course, this isn’t the case here.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You’ve asked the president — you’re asking the president to waive executive privilege in this case on the pardons. You’ve also asked him to waive executive privilege as you investigate the firing of those U.S. attorneys. And you’ve given the president a 10 a.m. deadline tomorrow to come forward with those documents.
But The Washington Post reports this morning that the White House is going to deny that request. They say that they’re not going to turn over the documents you’ve requested or the detailed justification for the executive privilege claims. So what’s your response going to be?
CONYERS: Well, I’m glad The Post finds out about what the president plans to do before anybody just gives us a call. We’re going to pursue our legal remedies to press forward with the subpoenas. I don’t think, if this is correct, we don’t have any other choice.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So that means holding the White House in contempt of Congress?
CONYERS: Well, yes. It means moving forward in the process that would require him to comply with the subpoenas like most other people.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/08/conyers-libby-hearing/
This will go to SCOTUS, which will uphold the president.
Sorry, guy. Executive privilege is not in the Constitution.
As the article says, it is an implied power, because the president cannot do his job if he cannot consult his advisers without the discussion being “on the record.”
Please cite the Article and Section.
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.