In Contempt Of Congress
It has just come to my attention that the white house has refused to comply with the subpoena sent by the Congress regarding Solyndra. My understanding of the Constitution and of Anderson v. Dunn,Wilkinson v. United States, and Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund, says that the Congress is now empowered to arrest the offenders and 'haul' them in to answer for themselves.
With that said, a set of questions to which I do not know the answer:
1) Can a sitting President be 'arrested' for contempt of Congress under these circumstances?
2) What about his entire administration? Aren't those responsible for this response letter now in direct, notorious contempt of this 112th Congress?
3) The President, to my knowledge, has not claimed executive privilege, doesn't this make him vulnerable on this issue?
4) Doesn't this technically trigger a Constitutional crisis? I am thinking specifically of the lack of precedence related to the executive branch giving Congress the finger.
Alright Ricochet, am I witnessing the beginnings of a major crisis?
- Comment (26)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Oct '10
Re: In Contempt Of Congress
Of course not. For there to be a crisis it must be precipitated by an action from the congress. Do you really believe that the eunuchs there will actually do something?
No crisis.
Re: In Contempt Of Congress
Excellent question.
Nov '10
Re: In Contempt Of Congress
A crisis may be unrecognized, just like a heart attack. I believe that this is rapidly becoming one, but I am doubtful that the Congressional leadership will push it to the point of becoming unblinkingly obvious and I feel sure that the MSM will ignore it so as to pevent its coming to the forefront of the nation's attention.
But, just like the unrecognized heart attack, the events will do considerable damage to our Constitution.
May '10
Re: In Contempt Of Congress
I agree that Congress won't do more than complain, and perhaps file some suit which will be settled a year or two from now to little (if any) effect.
The Left has us at a disadvantage. We care about law and unity. They don't.
A distinction must be made betwen authority (an abstract concept) and power (less abstract; based on a threat of force). Regardless of their authority, politicians can do anything so long as they remain sure their orders (law) will be obeyed.
In a respectable government, that line in the sand might as well be invisible, because no one looks at it. Unfortunately, it is now coming into view.
Our system is no longer based on law. It's based on competing whims... each side challenging the other to do something more than complain, as all cry for the Supreme referees to blow their whistle.
Apr '11
Re: In Contempt Of Congress
Now that at least two generations have been marinated in the idea of moral relativism, we are reaping the whirlwind of fundamental transformation. The next election has to be about restoring the Constitution, nothing less.
Oct '10
Re: In Contempt Of Congress
Didn't the Democrats try (and fail) something similar to this under Bush?
Jun '10
Re: In Contempt Of Congress
Aaron Miller:
Our system is no longer based on law. It's based on competing whims... each side challenging the other to do something more than complain, as all cry for the Supreme referees to blow their whistle. · Nov 4 at 8:31pm
Beautifully put!
Nov '10
Re: In Contempt Of Congress
A crisis perhaps but I doubt if it will be major in the whole scheme of things.
It would do America good to reflect that politicians are like beauty queens. Their success is based on popularity not education or wisdom. The only difference is that politicians rarely look good in the swim suit competition even given the narcissism of Anthony Weiner.
That being said, it is alarming that the White House believes that it is beyond having to answer to the people who are fairly being represented in this inquiry. Equally but to a lessor extent it is alarming that the subpoena was authorized on a party line vote. After all we are talking about a loss of large sums of public money and public trust. It would seem that all of our representation would be interested in restoration, at least they should be.
Mar '11
Re: In Contempt Of Congress
I can't answer J.Voss's constitutional questions but I'm amused that, in having contempt for the 112th Congress, Obama's shovel ready administration has joined a majority position.
Is that Capt. Spaulding the African explorer?
Apr '11
Re: In Contempt Of Congress
Just don't call me a Marxist!
Nov '10
Re: In Contempt Of Congress
I was poking around a bit trying to find info on this issue, and came across this post on Democratic Underground, relating to a similar issue under GWB in 2007-2008. I wonder if they feel the same way now....
Oct '10
Re: In Contempt Of Congress
raycon: Of course not. For there to be a crisis it must be precipitated by an action from the congress. Do you really believe that the eunuchs there will actually do something?
No crisis. · Nov 4 at 7:43pm
Have to agree, neither the Congress or Senate have the collective stones to change anything, save the name of of a building or highway. The absurd items on the dockets seem to preceed the needs of the Nation. Go Figure.
Oct '10
Re: In Contempt Of Congress
Speaking to the arrest of the first Black President under any condition, save stranging his wife. Would have implications beyond the pale.
Apr '11
Re: In Contempt Of Congress
Arrest isn't the way forward. Obama and Holder are not exactly flight risks. Impeachment isn't happening now, but it might happen in the future. The last (Democratic) Congress impeached 2 judges, one a conservative who was retiring after a criminal conviction (Congress wanted him to resign and forgo the pension, rather than retiring and keeping it; he resigned rather than letting the impeachment run its course), and the other a liberal who was sufficiently openly corrupt that John Conyers went after him (and achieved an almost straight vote convicting him, in both chambers).
The genuine threat of impeachment would probably be enough to get Holder booted, and we've got the ball rolling a decent distance already. If the heat could be kept up on this, this impeachment might be one of the dominant stories of 2012. Obama would be scaring the voters with stories of evil Republicans persecuting Latino immigrants, but at least the GOP isn't arming their killers.
Jan '11
Re: In Contempt Of Congress
I don't believe these subpoenas were ever a serious effort to get to the bottom of anything. Honestly, in an over three trillion budget, half a billion is nothing. More money is probably lost by the government due to clerical errors than this. The value of Solundra is the symbolism it creates for the stupidity of crony capitalism, green jobs, and the ability of politicians and bureaucrats to pick winners and losers in the market. There is no need to try and bring down the president with a trumped up contempt battle. The subpoenas are doing exactly what they should, keeping a spotlight shining on the symbol and forcing the administration into some awkward political positions. This is hand that should be slow played. The GOP leaders aren't wimps not to press on some dubious contempt of Congress case, they are being shrewd politicians.
Apr '11
Re: In Contempt Of Congress
I question Congress's motivation in issuing a subpoena. It looks like a headline grabber to me. But, where are they going to go with it? Especially in light of the President's ease of calling their bluff. Better to have stuck with the slow drip of continually bringing out malfeasance and sowing distrust in Obama. Were they actually hoping for impeachment and President Biden?
Aug '11
Re: In Contempt Of Congress
Which is why, if that loses, it truly puts and end to what it means to be American, as well as the permanent decline of the nation.
Mar '11
Re: In Contempt Of Congress
J.Voss:
Alright Ricochet, am I witnessing the beginnings of a major crisis? ·
I don't think so - business as usual on the way to being a wholly-owned subsidiary of China.
A major crisis is when Mr Cain raises his hand to his chin.
Re: In Contempt Of Congress
I took a quick look at the correspondence and think that we are a very long way from a constitutional crisis. There are no issues of principle here, and no claim of executive privilege. The issue is over the breadth of the subpoena where the White House counsel Kathryn Ruemmler has said that an approach that focuses first on the direct correspondence between the White and Solyndra should come first. In general I favor such staged discovery proceedings. To be sure, there is a lot of uncertainty as to what has gone on, but this situation will be ironed out by means far short of any arrest of the President, which would provoke a constitutional crisis that would dwarf anything that had to do with Solyndra.
May '10
Re: In Contempt Of Congress
Once again, Richard, your well-reasoned, scholarly observations that amount to a "nothing to see here" summation depresses the heck out of me. I was so hoping for a Presidential perp walk.
Edited on November 5, 2011 at 5:03pm