Article II: Contempt of Congress -- Invalid charge

[colfax_m]

Where does the Constitution say that?

The constitution does not give Congress the power to subpoena anyone.

The courts disagree.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That article states there are three methods to compel compliance. Only one involves going to a court.

And when you read the rest of the paper, you'll see congress's admission that this is the only effective choice Congress has to compel a member of the executive branch.

Further:

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.

Who determines if these requirements have been met, with regard to a executive branch subpoena -- that is, the subpoena is legal?
Hint: Not Congress.

Thus, the house's claim that they are legal is unsubstantiated as it cannot make that determination.
Article II is invalid because it assumes facts not in evidence.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Where does the Constitution say that?

The constitution does not give Congress the power to subpoena anyone.

The courts disagree.

Where does the --Constitution-- say that?

 

[colfax_m]

That article states there are three methods to compel compliance. Only one involves going to a court.

And when you read the rest of the paper, you'll see congress's admission that this is the only effective choice Congress has to compel a member of the executive branch.

Further:

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.

Who determines if these requirements have been met, with regard to a executive branch subpoena -- that is, the subpoena is legal?
Hint: Not Congress.

Thus, the house's claim that they are legal is unsubstantiated as it cannot make that determination.
Article II is invalid because it assumes facts not in evidence.

Effective is a relative term.

Congress has authority to produce subpoenas. This is an inherent power in the Constitution and has been recognized since the earliest days of the national. It does not need a court’s authority to issue a subpoena. It does not need a court’s authority to enforce them.

 

[colfax_m]

Where does the Constitution say that?

The constitution does not give Congress the power to subpoena anyone.

The courts disagree.

Where does the --Constitution-- say that?

It’s an inherent power.

 

[jc456]

The validity - the legality - of subpoenas is not determined by the issuing authority, but by the courts.
The fact the issuing authority believes a subpoena is valid in no way makes it so.
Article II is thus invalid because it assumes facts not in evidence.

Who issues subpoenas in regular judicial system?

Irrelevant to the issue at hand.

The validity - the legality - of subpoenas is not determined by the issuing authority, but by the courts.
The fact the issuing authority believes a subpoena is valid in no way makes it so.
Article II is thus invalid because it assumes facts not in evidence

Ha! You must know where I’m going with this because too don’t want to answer.

You stated the issuing authority doesn’t determine the validity of a subpoena.

In the regular judicial system, the court issues subpoenas. You’ve already claimed the court determines their validity. So as you see, your belief that the issuing authority can not determine their validity is false.

well the House isn't a court, and the constitution didn't give them that authority, it gives it to the judicial branch.

Where does the Constitution say that?

exactly where?

 

[M14 Shooter]

That article states there are three methods to compel compliance. Only one involves going to a court.

And when you read the rest of the paper, you'll see congress's admission that this is the only effective choice Congress has to compel a member of the executive branch.

Further:

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.

Who determines if these requirements have been met, with regard to a executive branch subpoena -- that is, the subpoena is legal?
Hint: Not Congress.

Thus, the house's claim that they are legal is unsubstantiated as it cannot make that determination.
Article II is invalid because it assumes facts not in evidence.

Effective is a relative term.
Congress has authority to produce subpoenas. This is an inherent power in the Constitution and has been recognized since the earliest days of the national. It does not need a court’s authority to issue a subpoena. It does not need a court’s authority to enforce them.

None of this addrees the point.
Let me know when you can do so, with substance.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Where does the Constitution say that?

The constitution does not give Congress the power to subpoena anyone.

The courts disagree.

Where does the --Constitution-- say that?

It’s an inherent power.

So the constitution does -not- say Congress has that power.
Thank you.

 

[jc456]

To wit:

President Trump abused the powers of his high office through the following means:

(1) Directing the White House to defy a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents sought therein by the Committees.

(2) Directing other Executive Branch agencies and offices to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of documents and records from the Committees—in response to which the Department of State, Office of Management and Budget, Department of Energy, and Department of Defense refused to produce a single document or record.

(3) Directing current and former Executive Branch officials not to cooperate with the Committees—in response to which nine Administration officials defied subpoenas for testimony, namely John Michael "Mick" Mulvaney, Robert B. Blair, John A. Eisenberg, Michael Ellis, Preston Wells Griffith, Russell T. Vought, Michael Duffey, Brian McCormack, and T. Ulrich Brechbuhl.

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.

Furthermore, They Denied The President Due Process because they refused to wait until The Courts Arbitrated the Validity of The Subpoenas, and on whether or not if they involved The President's Right to Executive Privilege.

Well yes - that's the point.
The House cannot soundly claim the President ignored a legal subpoena when the subpoena has not been ruled legal.

oh and executive privilege is not an abuse of power since it is within his authority! so, it's why the repubs are like, what the fk?

 

[M14 Shooter]

To wit:

President Trump abused the powers of his high office through the following means:

(1) Directing the White House to defy a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents sought therein by the Committees.

(2) Directing other Executive Branch agencies and offices to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of documents and records from the Committees—in response to which the Department of State, Office of Management and Budget, Department of Energy, and Department of Defense refused to produce a single document or record.

(3) Directing current and former Executive Branch officials not to cooperate with the Committees—in response to which nine Administration officials defied subpoenas for testimony, namely John Michael "Mick" Mulvaney, Robert B. Blair, John A. Eisenberg, Michael Ellis, Preston Wells Griffith, Russell T. Vought, Michael Duffey, Brian McCormack, and T. Ulrich Brechbuhl.

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.

Furthermore, They Denied The President Due Process because they refused to wait until The Courts Arbitrated the Validity of The Subpoenas, and on whether or not if they involved The President's Right to Executive Privilege.

Well yes - that's the point.
The House cannot soundly claim the President ignored a legal subpoena when the subpoena has not been ruled legal.

oh and executive privilege is not an abuse of power since it is within his authority! so, it's why the repubs are like, what the fk?

The executive branch gets to invoke EP until such a time a court says otherwise.
Absent a court ruling against EP, there's no argument that the subpoena was legal or valid.
If there subpoena has not been ruled legal/valid, refusing to answer it is perfectly withing the power of the President.
Now, if Trump, refused to address a subpoena - after- EP was ruled on, Congress would have a case. But he didn't and thus, they don't.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Trump has forced Congress to work through due process - there's no concrete demonstration of corruption or corrupt intent in this because Trump gains no undue advantage over anyone in doing so.

Fact remains - until a court rules the subpoena is legal, compels answer to same, and the appeals are exhausted, there is no compulsion to testify.
As such, the refusal to testify is not obstruction.

 

[candycorn]

Obstruction of Congress took place. Perfectly valid article

 

[M14 Shooter]

Obstruction of Congress took place. Perfectly valid article

As usual, you demonstrate you have no idea what you;re talking about.