Inherent Contempt vs. Criminal Contempt

There is a lot of disappointment about today's news about Conyers starting the procedural ball rolling toward a criminal conptempt citation against President Bush. The hope had been for "inherent contempt" which leads to the Sergeant at Arms of the House to arrest the relevant parties. Instead, the Conyers filing calls for criminal contempt, which goes through the US Attorney's office. The general assumption is that Bush will order the Prosecutor to refuse to cooperate -- putting an end to the affair.

I disagree.

Inherent contempt does indeed have the advantage of not using a Bush appointee for enforcement. But, come on, folks. Bush would just station a platoon of Philadelphia lawyers, federal law enforcement agents and/or Blackwater goons around his people and the Sergeant of Arms would get laughed off the TV set if he tried to get past the palace guard.

We are dealing with hardball players and there is no clever way around the fact that Bush and Cheney just tough out every challenge, without making any serious effort to justify themselves.




I have to admit that I share the general skepticism about whether this Congress will do its duty, but procedurally, criminal contempt is the right move. What is at issue is the Separation of Powers. Bush says he does not have to respect a Congressional Subpoena. If the Congress passes a contempt citation and demands compliance, Bush will defy it.

The Constitutional remedy for this defiance is impeachment.

If it plays out this way there is nothing to prove -- the facts will speak for themselves. Bush says he does not have to answer to the Congress. The Congress says it demands answers. A quintessential political question within the framework of Constitutional Law.

If the House cannot muster 218 votes in favor of the proposition that it has the power to investigate Presidential activity, our entire system of Government is kaput.


Unfortunately, I think it is kaput. The spectacle of the Congress legislating against bad puns and rude comments about the most divisive and partisan president in the history of the Republic pretty much demonstrated that.



Assuming for the moment that anybody in the Congress does care about the rule of law, criminal contempt is the better procedural strategy. But hope springs eternal -- and we need to crank up yet again to tell our Representatives to preserve the Constitution.

Choosing criminal contempt now does not prevent inherent contempt later.

Defiance of either (Inherent or Criminal) is grounds for impeachment.

Let's see how it plays out on friday.

But what would be the point of doing both? Do you think it might help build more support for impeachment if the House went through both procedures?

of Inherent Contempt is the question? There is a huge difference in how either of these two charges will be proceeded on... As the OP points out, if it is Inherent Contempt the Sargent at arms can literally arrest those that have been charged and bring them to justice within the House.

I totally agree with you and am not sure where we go from here actually.... Would seem to me that we are only a step away from the Pakistani Presidents doings on this past Saturday. If anyone can tell me why I am wrong in my thinking here, please chime in... The test in Pakistan probably didn't even need to occur in order for the Bush Administration to decide that there was no problem in proceeding in that direction.

we need to rachet up the heat on Congress to do its duty. It has no right to throw away the Constitutional authority to oversee the Executive Branch's conduct. Like the other poster just mentioned, even in Pakistan, people are in the streets over the rule of law.

But here we are too blase to do much of anything buy gripe about it.

It is THAT serious.

Best of luck with that... I have been in and around this site since it first began and have watched them sleep on and on and on... Part of it obviously is the MSM that causes the problem...

kick