Can Congress arrest Bush? Yes They Can - Lets See This President Rely On Habeas Corpus!

[kpete]

There is some talk about Congress invoking the concept of "inherent contempt" in the cases of Harriet Miers and the RNC emails. From Wikipedia:

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.)

The last time this occurred was in 1934, when the Senate brought inherent contempt charges against a former U.S. Postmaster. The upshot? The President filed a Habeas Corpus claim on the Postmaster's behalf, but the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had acted legally.

..................

On what grounds can they arrest the president - you ask? These grounds:

FELONY

Invoking a privilege is one thing, but telling a person not to show up in response to a subpoena -- if only to actually invoke the privilege -- is quite another. It's not just worse, it's a felony under federal criminal law. See for yourself:

18 U.S.C. Sec. 1505 : ... Whoever corruptly ... influences, obstructs, or impedes ... the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress ... shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than 5 years ... or both.

18 U.S.C. Sec. 1515(b): As used in section 1505, the term "corruptly" means acting with an improper purpose, personally or by influencing another, including ... withholding, or concealing ... information.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/015273.php

more at:
http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2007/07/contempt.html

[bbgrunt]

1. very interesting......

[williesgirl]

2. I'd like this read on EVERY newscast, in every newspaper, blog etc. recommended

Then Congress must act on it.

[razors edge]

3. Probably...

"Off the table" so to speak.

Great plan though.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

4. According to John Dean, they don't have to go through the Justice Dept and

can have Harriet Miers arrested by the Sargent At Arms. Ergo, why not Shrub?

[creeksneakers2]

6. I was looking into this idea

I'm no lawyer, but the statute for contempt (I think it was 2 section 192 US Code) only seems to apply to refusal to comply with a subpoena. Since Bush hasn't been subpoenaed,I don't see a statutory route.

Inherent contempt hasn't always been used just to force witnesses to testify. It was used at least once early in our history to punish a man who attempted to bribe a member of Congress. It originally applied to anyone who interfered with the conduct of Congress, including those who disrupt in the gallery. Bush certainly is disrupting by telling witnesses not to appear.

The legal history of inherent contempt use for these reasons since then is muddied up, and I'm not sure inherent contempt can still be used this way. I'll go back to looking though.

I think you have a great idea.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

9. Actually, it's a felony to tell someone not to comply wiith a subpoena. That alone is

an Impeachable offense.

See this thread posted by kpete this week.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1308870&mesg_id=1308870

[emlev]

5. If we want to push for this...

(and I'd like to see a little more analysis of it first, though on its surface it sounds very good)

how about if we start faxing a blurb about it to our Congressional Reps with a graphic of handcuffs?

[MonkeyFunk]

7. No

inherent contempt has never been used against the executive branch. You're mistaken that it was used against a former postmaster.

Congress can no more arrest the President than the President can arret Congress.

[creeksneakers2]

13. From Jurney v MacCracken 294 US 125

The petition occupies, with exhibits, 100 pages of the printed record in this Court; but the only additional aver- <294 U.S. 125, 145> ments essential to the decision of the question presented are, in substance, these: The Senate had appointed the special committee to make 'a full, complete and detailed inquiry into all existing contracts entered into by the Postmaster General for the carriage of air mail and ocean mail.' MacCracken had been served, on January 31, 1934, with a subpoena duces tecum to appear 'instanter' before the committee and to bring all books of account and papers 'relating to air mail and ocean mail contracts.' The witness appeared on that day; stated that he is a lawyer, member of the firm of MacCracken & Lee, with offices in the District; that he was ready to produce all papers which he lawfully could; but that many of those in his possession were privileged communications between himself and corporations or individuals for whom he had acted as attorney; that he could not lawfully produce such papers without the client first having waived the privilege; and that, unless he secured such a waiver, he must exercise his own judgment as to what papers were within the privilege. He gave, however, to the committee the names of these clients; stated the character of services rendered for each; and, at the suggestion of the committee, telegraphed to each asking whether consent to disclose confidential communications would be given. From some of the clients he secured immediately unconditional consent; and on February 1 produced all the papers relating to the business of the clients who had so consented.

On February 2, before the committee had decided whether the production of all the papers should be compelled despite the claims of privilege, MacCracken again appeared and testified as follows: On February 1 he personally permitted Givven, a representative of Western Air Express, to examine, without supervision, the files containing papers concerning that company; and authorized <294 U.S. 125, 146> him to take therefrom papers which did not relate to air mail contracts. Givven, in fact, took some papers which did relate to air mail contracts. On the same day, Brittin, vice president of Northwest Airways, Inc., without MacCracken's knowledge, requested and received from his partner Lee permission to examine the files relating to that company's business and to remove therefrom some papers stated by Brittin to have been dictated by him in Lee's office and to be wholly personal and unrelated to matters under investigation by the committee. Brittin removed from the files some papers; took them to his office; and, with a view to destroying them, tore them into pieces and threw the pieces into a waste paper basket.

Upon the conclusion of MacCracken's testimony on February 2, the committee decided that none of the papers in his possession could be withheld under the claim of privilege. 2 Later that day MacCracken received from the rest of his clients waivers of their privilege; and thereupon promptly made available to the committee all the papers then remaining in the files. On February 3 (after a request therefor by MacCracken), Givven restored to the files what he stated were all the papers taken by him. The petition does not allege that any of the papers taken by <294 U.S. 125, 147> Brittin were later produced. 3 It avers that, prior to the adoption of the citation for contempt under Resolution 172, MacCracken had produced and delivered to the Senate of the United States, 'to the best of his ability, knowledge and belief, every paper of every kind and description in his possession or under his control, relating in any way to air mail and ocean mail contracts; (and that) on February 5, 1934 ... all of said papers were turned over and delivered to said Senate Committee and since that date they have been, and they now are, in the possession of said Committee.'

[MonkeyFunk]

14. and what's your point?

MacCracken was a private citizen, and had never been Postmaster General.

[Hippo_Tron]

8. Sure, but I'd bet my money on the Secret Service over the Sgt. At Arms

Then again they might just stand down because they don't like him.

[TahitiNut]

12. The Secret Service is more than welcome to keep him safe inside his prison cell.

They're responsible for the physical security of the pResident ... not where he sleeps.

[MonkeyFunk]

15. well good luck to anyone

who tries to take physical custody of the President.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

16. My guess is that they would gladly stand down. eom

[MonkeyFunk]

17. try it

go perform a citizen's arrest on Bush and try to take him into your custody. Let us know how it works out.

Oh wait you won't have to. We'll hear about it on the news.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

20. Excuse me, but we are discussing the Sgt at Arms for the House. eom

[BuyingThyme]

10. It really is clear.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

11. Will they (Congress) step up and uphold the law?

Why do I feel the answer is no? :shrug:

[Wiley50]

18. Actually, the way I read it, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1505 refers to

Obstruction of Justice, not Contempt, inherent or otherwise

But I sure wish it Could or would be done

I'm no lawyer

(but I did sleep in a 28 ft sailboat last night)

[HCE SuiGeneris]

19. Was it moored at a Holiday Inn Excess?

I would give my eye-teeth to be near the water right now. AZ is sucking the life out of me.

[alfredo]

21. But ordering a person to defy a subpoena would be obstruction of justice.

[creeksneakers2]

22. I'm not sure obstruction of justice applies to Congressional

subpoenas. I think it applies to the judicial branch.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

23. It's a felony. Here you go.. a great thread by kpete

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1308870&mesg_id=1308870

[creeksneakers2]

24. That law has a different name though

Not obstruction of justice. The law's title is: Obstruction of Proceedings Before Departments, Agencies, and Committees.

[alfredo]

25. It would be a good thing to research.

[BornagainDUer]

26. Great post. A kick for irony.