Article II: Contempt of Congress -- Invalid charge

To wit:

Absent a prior decision by the courts, contempt of congress cannot exist because a person can only be compelled to testify pursuant to a valid - that is, "lawful" - subpoena, and Congress does not have the power to decide if a subpoena is valid.

Article II is thus invalid because it assumes facts not in evidence.

 

In an impeachment decision, Congress is the only body with the power to decide whether or not "contempt of Congress" is real. They have the sole power, not the Judicial. Although it is worth noting that the courts have already ruled that Congressional subpoenas are Constitutional. And this isn't the first time contempt of Congress has shown up in impeachment charges. This is just part of the attempt by the WH to hold Trump above the law in every respect: claim that the Courts have no oversight over him at all (as they have done) and then claim the Legislative has no power to enforce its oversight. I wish that the GOP stood for something other than Executive overreach, but that seems to be their only political philosophy at this point.

 

The question is the claim by the house that the subpoenas ignored by the administration are legal.
What court ruled the subpoenas were legal?
If there has been no such ruling, Article II is invalid because it assumes facts not in evidence.

 

The House has the sole power to determine whether those are impeachable or not. The courts have no say in that.

 

Why would it be up to the courts to determine this? For that matter, why is the legality of House subpoenas suddenly being called into question in the first place? They've been legally issuing subpoenas for an awful long time. Did you think that was all done illegally and that Congress had no authority to subpoena, say, the Nixon tapes?

 

If the house wants to impeach the President for not responding to subpoenas he is not compelled to respond to, that's up to them.
Dosn't change the fact their charge assumes facts not in evidence and is thus invalid.

 

The President is only compelled to answer to legal congressional subpoenas.
The courts, not congress, determine if congressional subpoenas are legal.
No such determination has been made, and thus the claim than the subpoenas are legal has no basis in fact.
Article II is thus invalid because it assumes facts not in evidence.

 

When it comes to impeachment, they have the SOLE power to determine what he's compelled to respond to. It is, indeed, up to them.

Your complaint is entirely unconstitutional. If you want to take Congress's sole power away from them, propose an amendment so you can continue the quest to remove ALL checks and balances from the Dear Leader.

 

Then why did the SCOTUS agree to hear the case? That alone says these subpoenas are unlawful.

 

Those of us who have read the Constitution know you are wrong. Would you like a link?

 

Care to explain this Constitutional illiteracy? You really think that if SCOTUS agrees to hear a case that it means they have already determined something is unlawful? Really? Do they just not teach any civics classes at all anymore?

 

Your statement has no basis in fact - congress has no demonstrable power to determine the legality of its subpoenas with regard to those issued for the executive branch.

Allow me to repeat myself:
If the house wants to impeach the President for not responding to subpoenas he is not compelled to respond to, that's up to them.
Doesn't change the fact their charge assumes facts not in evidence and is thus invalid.

 

You cannot demonstrate that I am wrong, in any way, with any link.

 

Congress has the sole power of impeachment. They have the sole power to determine this. I'm sorry if this offends the belief that the Almighty Executive must be held immune to literally all checks and balances, but it remains the truth. Your "Facts not in evidence" argument assumes that someone other than Congress has the authority to determine what counts as facts of the case, what counts as evidence, and what is valid. Your assumptions are contradicted by the Constitution. Sorry.

 

Sole power. Look it up some time. If you aren't willing to consider what the Constitution has to say in this matter, then . . . well, that actually explains a lot.

 

IT DOESN'T MATTER

For Democrats
It is HOW I FEEL ABOUT IT!
that matters. Not the facts.

Witness some of those FemNazi Senators
now regret their "encouraging" Al Franken to resign.

Al Franken would have made a popular
Presidential candidate 2020.


Never underestimate the Democratic Party's ability to
snatch Defeat From The Jaws of Victory.




Moi

No ​

 

As announced in Wilkinson v. United States,[7] a Congressional committee must meet three requirements for its subpoenas to be "legally sufficient." First, the committee's investigation of the broad subject area must be authorized by its chamber; second, the investigation must pursue "a valid legislative purpose" but does not need to involve legislation and does not need to specify the ultimate intent of Congress; and third, the specific inquiries must be pertinent to the subject matter area that has been authorized for investigation.

The Court held in Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund[8] that Congressional subpoenas are within the scope of the Speech and Debate clause which provides "an absolute bar to judicial interference" once it is determined that Members are acting within the "legitimate legislative sphere" with such compulsory process. Under that ruling, courts generally do not hear motions to quash Congressional subpoenas; even when executive branch officials refuse to comply, courts tend to rule that such matters are "political questions" unsuitable for judicial remedy. In fact, many legal rights usually associated with a judicial subpoena do not apply to a Congressional subpoena. For example, attorney-client privilege and information that is normally protected under the Trade Secrets Act do not need to be recognized.[9]​

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

 

The facts are entirely on the side of the Democrats in this case.

It's interesting, though, how Republicans in Congress are how attacking their own institution, and with it the Constitution, to protect Dear Leader and their dear party.

 

When you can respond to what I actually said, let me know.

Congress does not have the power to determine if its subpoenas are legal; only the courts can do that.
Thus, facts not in evidence.

 

As I said:
You cannot demonstrate that I am wrong, in any way, with any link.
Than you for the confirmation.

 

There is no "fact" to the claim that the subpoenas ignored by the executive branch - and thus, the basis for Article II of the impeachment - are legal

 

The Constitution says only that they have the sole power to impeach. The Constitution does not say that they have the sole power to do anything they want during impeachment. In this, like in all cases where there is a dispute between the legislative and executive branch, it is up to the courts to make that decision.

 

Then you are saying that the Supreme Court has power over impeachment and that Congress does not have the sole power of impeachment. The Constitution disagrees. It provides no recourse for the President to appeal impeachment to the Judiciary.

 

Obstructing Congress is part of every President's job.
It is a principal duty not a crime.

 

Complete nonsense. Presidents should respect checks and balances, not consider it their "duty" to shirk any and all checks on their power. The GOP is going off the authoritarian deep end on this one.