Inherent Contempt Congressional action against executive branch officials:

[seemslikeadream]

Congress use it!

1934 Postmaster General

simple majority

Sergeant-at-Arms

arrested

brought to house

go on trial

imprisoned

Listen to Randi


"Contempt of Congress" as explained by Wikipedia
As explained here (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress), there is clear precedent for Congressional action against executive branch officials:



Procedures

Following the refusal of a witness to produce documents or to testify, the Committee is entitled to report a resolution of contempt to its parent chamber. A Committee may also cite a person for contempt but not immediately report the resolution to the floor. In the case of subcommittees, they report the resolution of contempt to the full Committee, which then has the option of rejecting it, accepting it but not reporting it to the floor, or accepting it and reporting it to the floor of the chamber for action. On the floor of the House or the Senate, the reported resolution is considered privileged and, if the resolution of contempt is passed, the chamber has several options to enforce its mandate.

Inherent contempt

Under this process, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited for contempt is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subject to punishment that the House may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release from the contempt citation.)

Concerned with the time-consuming nature of a contempt proceeding and the inability to extend punishment further than the session of the Congress concerned (under Supreme Court rulings), Congress created a statutory process in 1857. While Congress retains its "inherent contempt" authority and may exercise it at any time, this inherent contempt process was last used by the Senate in 1934, against the Postmaster-General. After a one-week trial in the Senate floor (presided by the Vice-President of the United States, acting as Senate President), the Postmaster-General was found guilty and sentenced to 10 days imprisonment.

The Postmaster General had filed a petition of Habeas Corpus in federal courts to overturn his arrest, but after litigation, the US Supreme Court ruled that Congress had acted constitutionally, and denied the petition in the case Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125 (1945).

[bdamomma]

1. listening now.

:hi: seemslikeadream

[BuyingThyme]

5. To what are you listening?

[seemslikeadream]

6. Randi Rhodes Show

[BuyingThyme]

7. Thank you.

[Cleita]

2. Listening right now and I heard the whole show yesterday, with

Pat from San Antonio and John Dean agreeing with her. Can we prod our reps to do this?

[bdamomma]

3. call them up !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[seemslikeadream]

4. check edit above