If you scroll down a few posts, you'll find an all-too-brief glance at a fascinating topic: Can either House of Congress file "inherent contempt" charges against members of the administration? Can the House arrest Harriet Miers for refusing a subpoena? Can the House arrest Bush himself?
The answer, it seems, is yes.
I should have noted that the concept of inherent contempt differs from what we might call "normal" contempt, in which Congress asks the Department of Justice to enforce its will. One can guess just how fast the Bush DOJ would spring into action. Inherent contempt does not involve anyone in the Justice Department; the House or the Senate can direct its Sergeant at Arms to make an arrest.
In my previous piece, I discussed the last time inherent contempt was invoked. Unfortunately, I got my history wrong. (So did a lot of other people -- which is, of course, no excuse.) Although my larger point is not affected, I do ask readers to peruse the update to that post.
1 comment:
No, the House cannot arrest the president, in theory or in practice.
In my opinion, of course.
The House Sargent at Arms is not even going to try to get through the Secret Service, let alone the US Marshalls, the US Army, or the US Marines, all of whom could be mustered in the president's defense, under his command.
I am certain that no historical contemplation of a House arrest of the president has ever occurred, even in theory, except for that notion being rejected, for obvious reasons.
(Hint: such a contempt citation can be passed by a bare majority of the House. Such a low bar for incapacitating the Chief Executive Officer of the US would make a mockery of the Constitutional requirement of a 2/3rds vote for conviction in the Senate upon impeachment charges levied by the House for removal of the executive. You wouldn't need to remove him by impeachment if all you had to do is take him into House custody, for that would surely prevent his execution of his office.)
sofla
Post a Comment