Apparently They Think the Law Applies To You and Me but Not To Them
With election news dominating the airwaves, other important issues have been pushed aside. Some of them call out for attention. One such issue is the ongoing annihilation of the Constitution’s safeguards against a run-away power grab by one of the three branches of government.
White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers were subpoenaed to testify before Congress in the investigation into the firing of US Attorneys General for partisan political motives. They refused to comply - an unprecedented action – totally refusing to even show up before Congress.
Both Bolten and Miers were cited for contempt of Congress, giving them the dubious honor of being the highest officials ever held in contempt of Congress. But Attorney General Mukasey refused to enforce the contempt decree. (So much for his testimony during confirmation hearings that he “believes in the rule of law.”) Congress is now suing Bolten and Miers in District Court to demand compliance. This makes it obvious that regular Contempt charges don’t work very well with an Attorney General who chooses deriliction of duty over the rule of law.
However, there is another route Congress can take. Inherent Contempt. This is a little used, little known tool that the House or Senate can use. It requries only a majority…which should be easily attainable in the House. Under the Inherent Contempt power, the individual is "brought before the House or Senate by the Sergeant-at-Arms, tried at the bar of the body, and can be imprisioned. The purpose of the imprisonment may be punitive or coercive, and can be indefinite." The Inherent Contempt power is recognized by the Supreme Court as Constitutional.
The Vice President's Chief of Staff, David Addington, refused to testify on the investigation into the Bush Administration's ordering of torture. Carl Rove continues the pattern of executive arrogance by also refusing to testify. It is alleged that Mr. Rove personally instigated the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegleman. The Siegleman case has been criticized by legal experts, and 52 former state attorneys general – both Republicans and Democrats called for an investigation. (Siegleman is now out of prison pending appeal). If Rove refuses to testify and ignores a subpoena from the Judiciary Committee, then the House of Representatives should pass an Inherent Contempt citation and exercise the right to send the House Sergeant-of-Arms to pick up Mr. Rove and bring him before Congress to testify.
No American is above the law. None of us should be able to ignore Congress without consequence. Congress has few options when the Administration totally refuses to submit to any type of reasonable Congressional oversight. However, Congress has not only the right but the obligation to investigate these questionable circumstances. That is one of the purposes of the checks and balances inherent in our Constitution. If we back off or continue to drag our feet, we effectively forfeit the power of Congress to investigate the Executive branch and that is unacceptable.
The Supreme Court decision in Anderson v. Dunn, in 1821 held that Congress' power to hold someone in contempt was essential to ensure that Congress was "... not exposed to every indignity and interruption that rudeness, caprice, or even conspiracy, may mediate against it." In 1857, Congress enacted a law which made "contempt of Congress" a criminal offense against the United States.
Our representatives in Congress need to ensure that such criminal offenses have consequences.
Comments
I remember during Mukasey's confirmation hearings, and the vote afterward, that our own Dianne Feinstein voted for his confirmation because she trusted that he would abide by the law and not be partisan. I was furious with her at the time, wrote to her to express my outrage, and got one of those pandering form letters in return. She has lost my vote forever unless she does something really amazing to vindicate herself.
As for the Bush administration personnel, their collective arrogance is mind-boggling.
Bolton and Miers should be picked up physically by some authorities and delivered in person to Congress.
I am so sick of these people.
Posted by: Renee G | May 22, 2008 04:47 PM
Renee, under the Inherent Contempt power the Congress can send out the Sergeant of Arms and have both Bolton and Meirs, and now Rove, arrested and taken to the House to be tried. They can even keep them locked up there. The real question is going to be if Congress is finally going to say enough is enough with this Bush/Cheney Administration and start asserting their power. If they don't, they just might lose it.
And I agree with you as far as Diane Feinstein is concerned. I'm also still pissed off at Schumer for being the other Democrat that made Mukasey's nomination possible. The mixed messages we get from these people (many of them) is sure confusing; it gets harder and harder to know who is really on what side. Sometimes I suspect the corporations own just about everyone, and the whole illusion of different parties and agendas is just a scam to make Americans believe they have choices. I sure hope I'm wrong about that.
Nice piece Trish!
Posted by: Stephen Rose | May 23, 2008 06:35 PM
Sad to say, Renee, I bought into the idea that Mukasey would probably be better than an “acting” AG appointed by Bush. As I watched his performance I realized I had been wrong and began writing to Feinstein pointing out to her that he is not doing the job and since she voted to confirm him she should be exercising careful oversight on what he is doing or not doing like not enforcing these contempt citations. She does not respond to these letters because she has no form letter that matches up with what I am saying to her. I suspect she is getting ready to retire. She and her husband have managed to feather their nest pretty well with government contracts (see: http://www.metroactive.com/feinstein/) and she has done so many things to anger her constituents the past couple of years that I can’t help but think she doesn’t care because she isn’t going to run again. If she does run, I will campaign for anyone Democratic who opposes her.
Thanks, Stephen, this subject is high on my agenda and brings me to the boiling point every time I get into it. I am just appalled by the inaction of Congress. They offer all kinds of excuses for not impeaching Cheney or Bush. None of those arguments seem legitimate with the obvious criminality of some of the things going on. It really is looking like we will have to vote all of them out of office and start over if we are going to get government of, by, and for the people. Experience and continuity be damned! What they are experienced in is chicanery and what we don’t want is continuity in what is going on.
Posted by: Trish | May 23, 2008 08:51 PM