Article II: Contempt of Congress -- Invalid charge

It is the duty of all Presidents to check and balance the power of Congress. Surely you know that.

 

The only way he can do that is with his power of veto. He can't ignore subpoenas, or obstruct congress.

 

No. What I am saying is that the house does not have unlimited power during impeachment. By taking it to an extreme, it can be easily demonstrated that they do not have unlimited power. If they had unlimited power, they could order the president to commit suicide and then charge him with contempt, if he does not comply.

 

And it is the duty of Congress to check and balance the President....Half of it is trying to do so, the other half is derelict in that duty.

 

It is a serious crime to conspire to rig and nullify American elections.

"Mr. Horowitz also said senior-level supervisors bore responsibility for permitting systemic failures to fester, and his office has begun a broader audit of unrelated FISA applications.

His exposé left some former officials who generally defend government surveillance practices aghast.

“These errors are bad,” said David Kris, an expert in FISA who oversaw the Justice Department’s National Security Division in the Obama administration. “If the broader audit of FISA applications reveals a systematic pattern of errors of this sort that plagued this one, then I would expect very serious consequences and reforms."
THE NEW YORK TIMES, We Just Got a Rare Look at National Security Surveillance. It Was Ugly., By Charlie Savage, 12/11/19.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...-security-surveillance-it-was-ugly/ar-AAK1QRS

 

You aren't paying attention.

 

Still doesn't make it valid but then, Orange Man Bad, so facts are not important.

 

The Constitution says the House has the sole power to impeach. That means that only the House can impeach. Not the senate, the judicial branch, not the executive branch or some coalition of concerned citizens. Only the house can impeach. Not that the house can do anything they choose during impeachment.

 

Congress should respect the separation of powers and respect that the court decides the differences between Congress and the WH.

 

Baloney. Obama ignored Congressional subpoenas. How soon you forget.

 

Not when it comes to impeachment. The separation of powers gives that power to Congress and Congress alone. Catch up.

 

LOL, it always has been used in impeachments and Congress does not have the power to breech the separation of powers on a whim. That is what the court is for. You don't know much about this do you?

 

I don't know what you're trying to do. I mean, it's not possible that you wouldn't know at this point that they most absolutely do have that power.

So I can only assume you want to start a debate on something absurd to... I don't know why, to tell the truth.

 

The power to impeach does not give Congress the power to determine that its subpoenas are legal.

 

Obama thwarted Congress but for the left, that is whataboutism so they can ignore the obvious to argue the ridiculous.

 

All of a sudden, Congression subpoenas aren't legal. Only with Trump!

 

That's not what the Constitution says.

 

Not when the basis of the charge revolves around the validity of a subpoena which they have no power to decide.
You can do it, but you will be laughed at

 

When it comes to impeachment, they are the ONLY ones who have the power to decide. I'm sorry you find the Constitution so comical.

 

Congressional Subpoenas have been legal for nearly as long as we have had this Republic:
"The House has compelled the attendance of witnesses since 1795, when it investigated an attempt to bribe Members. Indeed, early cases of congressional subpoena and contempt powers focused on the abuse or discredit of the House itself…

Subpoena power for routine legislative matters evolved after an 1827 debate authorizing the Committee on Manufactures to “send for persons and papers.” The committee, seeking more information on reforming the tariff of 1824…

(In 1857) Congress passed the forbearer to the current law on contempt (2 USC §194). In that law, the failure of a witness to answer “any question pertinent” to a congressional investigation would prompt an investigation by the Department of Justice, as well as potential fines and jail time."

https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Investigations-Oversight/

I thought it was the person who was subpoenaed who needed to show cause as to why a subpoena should be quashed. Since when has anyone ever refused to comply and then gotten off because they claimed the investigator did not go to court to show that he/they had the right to subpoena?

 

Only if you have a judge legally compell him

 

When were the subpoenas cited in Article II ruled legal?
By whom?

 

When were the subpoenas in Article II ruled legal?
By whom?

 

I said you can do it.
Difficulty reading today.

You'll get laughed at

 

The Constitution does not say that.