Question about the subpoena power a Democratic Congress will have...

[BlooInBloo]

Will the executive be able to effectively quash such subpoenas by refusing to give security clearance, like they've been doing, in order to kill investigations?

Or do Congressional subpoenas trump that kinda thing?

Or is that something that the SCOTUS is likely to end up deciding?

[Greeby]

1. Doing so could bring a Contempt of Congress charge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

[BlooInBloo]

4. Hadn't considered that - thx!

[ThomCat]

2. Security clearance has become a joke.

There should be a law stating that nothing can be classified beyond the reach of Presidents, Senators and Members of Congress. There should be nothing happening in our government that these elected officials can't see.

In a democracy there is no possible justification for hiding things from our top elected officials.

[BlooInBloo]

3. With suitable penalties for those who betray the trust...

... of that knowledge, I don't have a big problem with that...

[adwon]

5. As a fun thought

Should the executive refuse information to Congress on the basis of security clearances, Congress has absolute power to change the law. Further, oversight of executive agencies is a prerogative that Congress can historically claim, and has, because it both created them and funded them. Additionally, looking at the past 30 years or so, people tend to support Congress over the executive when it comes to investigations (at least when the investigations involve real issues of government and not overblown real estate deals in Arkansas).

As a practical matter, Numbnuts will cave on the investigations. I imagine he's keen to avoid Nixon's mistake.