| Revision as of 16:26, 24 March 2007 editKMA1623 (talk | contribs)7 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:30, 29 March 2007 edit undoJasonCNJ (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,120 edits Complete Rewrite of the ArticleNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| In the ] of the ], '''contempt of Congress''' is the ] of ] the work of ], with a ] of up to one year in prison and up to $1,000 in ]s. 2 USC Sec. 192. | |||
| '''Contempt of Congress''' is the act of obstructing the work of the United States Congress or one of its committees. While historically the bribery of a Senator or Representative was considered "contempt of Congress," in modern times a person must refuse to comply with a ] issued by a ] or ] - usually seeking to compel either testimony or documents - in order to be considered in "contempt of Congress." | |||
| In 1821 the Supreme Court recognized in Anderson v. Dunn that Congress' power to hold someone in contempt was incidental to its power to legislate. | |||
| == History == | |||
| Either house of the United States Congress may take such action for refusing to testify before a ], or failing to provide a committee with requested documents. There have also been contempt cases based on bribing a ] or ]. | |||
| In the late 1790s, contempt of Congress was considered an "implied power" and contempt citations were issued against Robert Randall, who had reportedly attempted to bribe Representative William Smith of South Carolina in 1795; against William Duane, a newspaper editor who refused to answer Senate questions in 1800; and against Nathaniel Rounsavell, another newspaper editor for releasing sensitive information to the press in 1812. In 1821, the Supreme Court issued its decision in ''Anderson v. Dunn'' which 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." The historical interpretation that bribery of a Senator or Representative was considered contempt of Congress has long since been abandoned in favor of criminal statutes. In 1857, Congress enacted a law which made "contempt of Congress" a criminal offense against the United States. | |||
| == Subpoenas == | |||
| In order for someone to be convicted of contempt of Congress, the congressional committee which has suffered the contempt first reports a resolution that the affected individual is guilty of contempt. This takes a majority vote of the committee. The full ] or ] then must approve the resolution, which sends the matter to a United States Attorney, for presentation to a ] and ] if the grand jury issues an indictment. 2 USC Sec. 194. This procedure was put into place in ] in order to provide an alternative to the then customary procedure under which the matter was decided by the affected house of Congress. | |||
| Congressional rules empower all its standing committees with the authority to compel witnesses to produce testimony and documents for subjects under its jurisdiction. Committee rules may provide for the full Committee to issue a subpoena, or permit subcommittees or the Chairman (acting alone or with the ranking member) to issue subpoenas. | |||
| From time to time, Congress lodges contempt of Congress charges against members of the United States government, usually members of the ] of the United States who claim that releasing their records to a committee would cause more harm than good, or sometimes that the records are protected by ] and must remain secret. This can put the executive branch in an unusual ethical position, since the executive branch employs the ], who decides whether to bring cases of contempt of Congress to the grand jury. In addition, it is often the United States Attorney who advises executive branch members in the first place whether to withhold controversial documents or provide them to the congressional committees. | |||
| As announced in ''Wilkinson v. United States'' (1961), the Congressional committee must meet three requirements for its subpoenas to be "legally sufficient." First, the committee 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 which have been authorized for investigation. | |||
| For example, ], ], and ] have all been cited by Congress for contempt, though in all these cases the Congress and the executive branch subsequently reached an agreement on the delivery of documents before the matter reached a grand jury. In cases involving delivery of documents, Congress currently seems to view contempt of Congress as a tool to reach an agreement with the executive branch, rather than as a law to punish the contemptuous. | |||
| The Court held in ''Eastland v. United States Serviceman's Fund'' (1975) that Congressional subpoenas are within the scope of the "Speech and Debate clause" which provides "an absolute bar to judicial interference" 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, the Courts tend to rule that such matters "]" unsuitable for judicial remedy. | |||
| Various ]s have contempt crimes on the books for obstructing the work of the ]. ] is an example of this. Similarly, in some counties and cities, it is a violation of local ordinances to interfere in like manner with the proceedings of the county board of supervisors or the city council. | |||
| == Procedures == | |||
| Following the refusal of a witness to produce documents or to testify, the Committee is entitled to report a resolution of contempt to its parent chamber. A Committee may also cite a person for contempt but not immediately report the resolution to the floor. In the case of subcommittees, they report the resolution of contempt to the full Committee, which then has the option of rejecting it, accepting it but not reporting it to the floor, or accepting it and reporting it to the floor of the chamber for action. On the floor of the House or the Senate, the reported resolution is considered privileged and, if the resolution of contempt is passed, the chamber has several options to enforce its mandate. | |||
| ===Inherent Contempt=== | |||
| Under this process, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited for contempt is arrested by the ] or ], brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subject to punishment that the House may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release from the contempt citation.) | |||
| Concerned with the time-consuming nature of a contempt proceeding and the inability to extend punishment further than the session of the Congress concerned (under Supreme Court rulings), Congress created a statutory process in 1857. While Congress retains its "inherent contempt" authority and may exercise it at any time, this inherent contempt process has not been exercised by either House in over 70 years. | |||
| ===Statutory Proceedings=== | |||
| Following a contempt citation, the presiding officer of the chamber is instructed to refer the matter to the U.S. Attorney; according to the law it is the "duty" of the ] to refer the matter to a ] for action. | |||
| The criminal offense of "contempt of Congress" sets the penalty at not less than one month nor more than twelve months in jail and a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $1,000. Those penalities are enforced upon conviction, even if the Congress which initiatied the contempt citation has expired. | |||
| The statutory procedure has generally been used by Congress since 1935. But its use does leave some things unclear. The law pronounces the "duty" of U.S. Attorney is to empanel a grand jury and for its action on the matter. But dispute exists over whether or not the Congress can properly compel the U.S. Attorney to take this action, as the U.S. Attorney is a member of the Executive Branch and ultimately reports to the President. (The Courts have been reluctant to decide this question, claiming it is a "political question" for resolution by the elected branches of government.) | |||
| ===Civil Procedures=== | |||
| Senate Rules authorize the Senate to direct the Senate Legal Counsel to file a civil action against any priviate individual found in contempt. Upon motion by the Senate, the ] issues another order for a person to comply with Senate process. If the subject then refuses to comply with the Court's order, the person may be cited for ] and may incur sanctions imposed by the Court. The process has been used at least six times; but the civil procedure can only be used against Executive branch officials "in certain limited circumstances." | |||
| == Partial list of those held in contempt == | |||
| == Other legislatures == | |||
| various U.S. States have made similar actions against their own legislatures violations of state criminal laws. Sometimes, those laws can even be applied to non-sovereign legislative bodies like county legislatures and city councils. | |||
| ==See also== | ==See also== | ||
Revision as of 04:30, 29 March 2007
Contempt of Congress is the act of obstructing the work of the United States Congress or one of its committees. While historically the bribery of a Senator or Representative was considered "contempt of Congress," in modern times a person must refuse to comply with a subpoena issued by a Congressional committee or subcommittee - usually seeking to compel either testimony or documents - in order to be considered in "contempt of Congress."
History
In the late 1790s, contempt of Congress was considered an "implied power" and contempt citations were issued against Robert Randall, who had reportedly attempted to bribe Representative William Smith of South Carolina in 1795; against William Duane, a newspaper editor who refused to answer Senate questions in 1800; and against Nathaniel Rounsavell, another newspaper editor for releasing sensitive information to the press in 1812. In 1821, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Anderson v. Dunn which 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." The historical interpretation that bribery of a Senator or Representative was considered contempt of Congress has long since been abandoned in favor of criminal statutes. In 1857, Congress enacted a law which made "contempt of Congress" a criminal offense against the United States.
Subpoenas
Congressional rules empower all its standing committees with the authority to compel witnesses to produce testimony and documents for subjects under its jurisdiction. Committee rules may provide for the full Committee to issue a subpoena, or permit subcommittees or the Chairman (acting alone or with the ranking member) to issue subpoenas.
As announced in Wilkinson v. United States (1961), the Congressional committee must meet three requirements for its subpoenas to be "legally sufficient." First, the committee 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 which have been authorized for investigation.
The Court held in Eastland v. United States Serviceman's Fund (1975) that Congressional subpoenas are within the scope of the "Speech and Debate clause" which provides "an absolute bar to judicial interference" 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, the Courts tend to rule that such matters "political questions" unsuitable for judicial remedy.
Procedures
Following the refusal of a witness to produce documents or to testify, the Committee is entitled to report a resolution of contempt to its parent chamber. A Committee may also cite a person for contempt but not immediately report the resolution to the floor. In the case of subcommittees, they report the resolution of contempt to the full Committee, which then has the option of rejecting it, accepting it but not reporting it to the floor, or accepting it and reporting it to the floor of the chamber for action. On the floor of the House or the Senate, the reported resolution is considered privileged and, if the resolution of contempt is passed, the chamber has several options to enforce its mandate.
Inherent Contempt
Under this process, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited for contempt is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subject to punishment that the House may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release from the contempt citation.)
Concerned with the time-consuming nature of a contempt proceeding and the inability to extend punishment further than the session of the Congress concerned (under Supreme Court rulings), Congress created a statutory process in 1857. While Congress retains its "inherent contempt" authority and may exercise it at any time, this inherent contempt process has not been exercised by either House in over 70 years.
Statutory Proceedings
Following a contempt citation, the presiding officer of the chamber is instructed to refer the matter to the U.S. Attorney; according to the law it is the "duty" of the U.S. Attorney to refer the matter to a grand jury for action.
The criminal offense of "contempt of Congress" sets the penalty at not less than one month nor more than twelve months in jail and a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $1,000. Those penalities are enforced upon conviction, even if the Congress which initiatied the contempt citation has expired.
The statutory procedure has generally been used by Congress since 1935. But its use does leave some things unclear. The law pronounces the "duty" of U.S. Attorney is to empanel a grand jury and for its action on the matter. But dispute exists over whether or not the Congress can properly compel the U.S. Attorney to take this action, as the U.S. Attorney is a member of the Executive Branch and ultimately reports to the President. (The Courts have been reluctant to decide this question, claiming it is a "political question" for resolution by the elected branches of government.)
Civil Procedures
Senate Rules authorize the Senate to direct the Senate Legal Counsel to file a civil action against any priviate individual found in contempt. Upon motion by the Senate, the federal district court issues another order for a person to comply with Senate process. If the subject then refuses to comply with the Court's order, the person may be cited for contempt of court and may incur sanctions imposed by the Court. The process has been used at least six times; but the civil procedure can only be used against Executive branch officials "in certain limited circumstances."
Partial list of those held in contempt
Other legislatures
various U.S. States have made similar actions against their own legislatures violations of state criminal laws. Sometimes, those laws can even be applied to non-sovereign legislative bodies like county legislatures and city councils.