Sergeant at Arms is Authorized to Arrest Any person Violating Senate Rules (inc Prez)

[mod mom]

"As chief law enforcement officer of the Senate, the Sergeant at Arms is charged with maintaining security in the Capitol and all Senate buildings, as well as protection of the members themselves. The Sergeant at Arms serves as the executive officer of the Senate for enforcement of all rules of the Committee on Rules and Administration regulating the Senate Wing of the Capitol and the Senate Office Buildings and has responsibility for and immediate supervision of the Senate floor, chamber and galleries. The Sergeant at Arms is authorized to arrest and detain any person violating Senate rules, including the President of the United States."

http://www.senate.gov/reference/office/sergeant_at_arms.htm

SO WHY NOT ARREST THOSE WHO INTERFERE W SUBPOENAS NEEDED TO GET TO THE TRUTH?

[Fredda Weinberg]

1. You'd have to get the Senate to agree

and with current rules, the practical requirement exists for a super majority.

[mod mom]

3. So 60 Senators are needed to proceed with an arrest?

[youngdem]

4. Yes.

[TahitiNut]

6. Edited: No ... the Senate is not involved in contempt of the House.

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.)

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

Inherent contempt requires only a committee vote and a simple majority, afaik.

It's not a pardonable offense and it's not subject to filibuster or supermajority.

[eppur_se_muova]

15. Thanks, I had been looking for that info. nt

[mod mom]

16. Thank you for that information.

I had thought there was only 1 SAA for the entire congress, and love the simple majority part.

[TahitiNut]

17. Sure thing. It gets a bit confusing. I don't believe ANY super-majority is needed ...

... either in the House (of course) or the Senate. Committees in both chambers operate on simple majority voting and there's no filibustering in a committee of the Senate. (The House Rules preclude filibusters.) I don't even believe the Senate has filibusters when sitting as a "committee of the whole" ... which I think is the parliamentary context for a "trial."

Further, the Senate isn't involved in any House Inherent Contempt proceeding and the House isn't involved in any Senate Inherent Contempt proceeding.

Thus, I don't believe any super-majority is needed in any part of an Inherent Contempt proceeding, but I'm still looking for more authoritative and detailed information.

To me, it looks like a VERY viable option.

[whistle]

2. When did Dick Cheney last preside over the Senate? I mean by that

...when was Cheney last seen doing the one job he is supposed to do in the Senate Chamber? I don't believe he has appeared there in weeks, has he?

[mod mom]

5. Trivia: Last Used in 1987–1988 When Sen Byrd ordered SAA to Arrest Absent Members

When Republicans boycotted the sessions, Byrd resurrected a little-known power that had last been wielded in 1942: he directed the Senate sergeant-at-arms to arrest absent members and bring them to the floor. In the resulting turmoil, Oregon Republican Bob Packwood was arrested, reinjured a broken finger, and was physically carried onto the Senate floor at 1:19 a.m. Democrats were still unable to break the filibuster, and the campaign finance bill was pulled from the floor after a record-setting eighth cloture vote failed to limit debate.

-snip

http://uspolitics.about.com/b/a/208152.htm

[MonkeyFunk]

7. While Byrd is old

he's not THAT old.

He entered the senate in 1958.

[mod mom]

10. my bad-I've corrected my post. He used in in the 80's and was used before that

in 1942.

[kestrel91316]

8. OMG. You made that up. right?

"....Bob Packwood was arrested, reinjured a broken finger, and was physically carried onto the Senate floor...."
:wow:

The only politics I paid attention to in the 80s was abortion rights. I must have been climbing in the Sierras when this happened.....

[kestrel91316]

9. Tha snip refers to 1987-88 session

[GOTV]

11. It sounds like his powers only extend to the Senate grounds....

... so he couldn't go to the Oval Office and arrest the president.

[mod mom]

12. Not so: McGrain v Daughtery arrest made in Cincinnati

The Supreme Court has affirmed Congressional power to frog-march witnesses before the bar of Congress. In McGrain v. Daugherty, a recusant witness (the AG's brother) refused to comply with issued subpoenas. The Senate issued a warrant authorizing its sergeant at arms to take custody of the witness and bring him before the bar of the Senate to answer questions. The deputy sergeant at arms went to Cincinnati, Ohio to pick up the uncooperative witness to place him in custody. The witness objected by filing habeas corpus, but the Supreme Court upheld Congressional legal authority to use its own process to compel persons to appear and testify on issues needed to enable Congress to exercise its Constitutional legislative function.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/7/9/20378/62042

[GOTV]

18. I can't imagine what a mess this is all going to be....

... I'm picturing battles between different branches of our law enforcement infrastructure.

Can you believe that the Secret Service will allow the Senate police to arrest the president or Cheney? What happens when police from different jurisdictions have conflicting orders? Is there an inherent hierarchy? To the Senate police trump the DC Police? Does the Secret Service trump them both? Does the Army come out? In conflict between different law enforcement entities, does everyone put down their guns, take a deep breath, and let the courts sort it out?

This is an ugly mess that we should really fix as soon as we have an intelligent administration.

[KAT119]

13. I believe the SAA (and co.) can go anywhere to locate person cited

in contempt. Anyone know for sure?

[eppur_se_muova]

14. Because the subpoenas are being issued by HOUSE committees?

There are two SAA's -- one for the House, one for the Senate.

If anyone can show me where the SAAH has the same authority, I'd REALLY like to see it, but I haven't found it myself.
(ON EDIT: see TahitiNut's response #6 above)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3383995&mesg_id=3384142