Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire House Reps CAN arrest Lerner under "inherent contempt" provision.

If DOJ Holder refuses, the H of R can vote to have the Sgt. at Arms find her and arrest her............its all here......

http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2546356

Confine her where and what judge is going to hear the charges? kwg

People under arrest usually go to jail and stay there unless they post bail or a judge remands them to the custody of their attorney.
Whatever judge is on the bench at the time the charges come up.

There first must be a convening of a grand jury.

Due process isn't extinct in these type matters.

Did you read the article and the Constitutional provision - or did you start the billable hour meter?

You would have made a terrible Pitchfork and Torches Hooligan...

========

With you, no. But, you can pay the other dumbass attorney who suggests this all you want.

Hey buddy, the contempt charge doesn't vacate her due process and neither does her arrest. It starts the judicial process - something that Holder refuses to do.

That *other* attorney may actually be worth what he/she charges.

Contempt of congress doesn't require a grand jury, or any process other than the congress voting that she has refused to comply with a lawful demand, i.e., provide the testimony / documentation requested.

Same as organized crime members refusing to testify before grand juries.

The judge overseeing the grand jury finds the OC member in contempt, and off to jail for up to 18 months, or the duration of the grand jury.

If congress finds Lerner in contempt, as they should, she is off to jail, with the keys to the cell in her pocket. If she provides the required testimony / information, she then gets out.

The only due process right would be habeas corpus, in theory only available AFTER she's locked up.

Holder was found in contempt.

Holder did not go to jail.

When is Holder's court date ?


Mike

Holder would not have a "court date", same as Lerner, if congress would enforce the contempt citation.

But they haven't / won't.

They "don't wanna go there".

Buncha puzzies.

As I understand it, the courts need not even be involved in jailing someone for contempt of Congress. The normal path is to refer the matter to the courts for independent handling, but as I read it, houses of Congress have authority in their own right to enforce their subpoena power.

If that's correct, then the House can jail Lerner for lying to them and obstructing their investigation. They can't jail her for other offenses.

Holder was "found in contempt" and that's as far as it went , words. Congress took NO further action.

Lerner is a smaller fish , so they might do something , maybe. A token.


Mike

The House has followed the statutory procedure since 1934.

==============

Hire Daffy Duck if you want. It's your money. Of course, your ignorance may impact upon whether it was well spent or not. Educate yourself. Here's some high school civics cheat sheets for you.
==========

Q: What is the process for holding someone in contempt of Congress?

A: The procedure can start in either the House or the Senate. The two chambers do not work together on contempt citations. It only takes one chamber to refer a person to be prosecuted for contempt. A contempt citation can start with a subcommittee, a full committee or in the full House or Senate.

If it starts at the committee level and a person refuses to comply with a committee subpoena, the committee has to vote to move a criminal contempt citation forward. It takes a majority vote for the citation to move to the full House or Senate.

Q: What happens next?

A: Once the full House or Senate has a contempt citation, it must be debated by the full chamber like any other resolution. It is subject to the same filibuster and procedural rules as any other House or Senate resolution. It takes a majority vote to be approved.

Once approved, the House speaker or the Senate president pro tem then turns the matter over to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, "whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action," according to the law.

Of course,another added dimension, of some importance in this particular case, is whether Lerner actually waived her constitutional privilege.

By the "jail", this doesn't mean a sentence has been pronounced. Arresting and bringing to "jail" is a formal process whereby the person is "booked" and bond can be set.
What I have trying to make the point is that the "founders" provided for a "work around" to the potential of an obstinate AG.
What "isaac" is hung up with is the "process". Well, this is an alternate process that can get to the heart of the matter. No one is looking to deny her of a trial but if the AG won't pursue this because of he is "all in" for his boss, than the House can act on their own.
We are treading on some Constitutional issues here already with our first black and historical emperor.
We should be grateful that the "founders" were thinking ahead when they crafted the document.

I see "isaac" finally read the article. The meter is running now.........

Huh? Perhaps you should do more reading.

You can cite Wikipedia as your authority if you want, but the simple fact is that congress (the house), by itself, could hold Lerner in contempt and have her incarcerated for her refusal to provide the information requested by the house, without her having any justification to do so.

They need no more help other than to have their own enforcers make the arrest.

Whether or not they do so, is another matter.

If I wanted to waste my money, I know who I would hire.

Let's do it this way. Watch what happens. When you figure it out and I don't say "I told you so,dumbass", you try to get some of your money back from that smart lawyer you wanted so badly.