It seems that the House Judiciary Committee is considering seeking help from the Justice Department to enforce contempt citations against Bush administration officials such as Joshua Bolten who refuse to respond to congressional inquiries into alleged White House wrongdoing. That would be a mistake.
Such a strategy leaves Congress beholden to hostile executive branch officials to enforce its prerogatives on exactly the type of charges that the administration said this week it would not allow officials to pursue. This strategy also would allow the president to pardon his underlings should they ever be indicted and convicted.
,
,
,
The limitation on the president's pardon power was most comprehensively discussed in a 1925 opinion by Chief Justice (and former president) William Howard Taft in the case of Ex Parte Grossman.
Grossman had been accused during Prohibition of the illegal sale of liquor and was enjoined by a federal court from further sale of alcoholic beverages. When he violated the order, he was accused of contempt and sentenced to prison -- and then pardoned by the president.
Despite the pardon, a federal judge in Chicago ordered him to jail on the theory that a charge of criminal contempt was not an "offense against the United States" because it was a judicial act, and a presidential pardon would violate the separation of powers.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/20/AR2007072001802.html---------------------------------------------
This article in essence argues that referring Miers and Bolton to the US Attorney is not a good route to go as it opens the door for a presidential pardon. However, if Congress were to arrest and imprison Miers and Bolton, because of the separation of powers, a presidential jpardon would have no effect on Bolton's and Miers' situation as it would violate the separation of powers. If Miers and Bolton were to file a writ of Habeas Corpus, the author cites case law that shows the SCOTUS would have no choice but to rule in favor of Congress,