General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSergeant at Arms of the United States House of Representatives
(a) Law enforcement authority
The Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives shall have the same law enforcement authority, including the authority to carry firearms, as a member of the Capitol Police. The law enforcement authority under the preceding sentence shall be subject to the requirement that the Sergeant at Arms have the qualifications specified in subsection (b).
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2/5605
Can Congress Jail Witnesses Who Refuse to Cooperate?
<snip>
But, just because theres no physical jail doesnt mean theres no right for Congress to detain individuals and in fact the Capitol Police do maintain a holding cell a few blocks away.
http://time.com/5023920/trump-russia-election-congress-capitol-jail/
Just sayin'
tymorial
(3,433 posts)If a member becomes disruptive or "unruly" the sergeant at arms will be instructed to throttle the member with the mace until they submit.
Okay seriously, when a member is engaging in disruptive or unruly behavior the speaker can order the sergeant at arms to present the mace. This action is designed to restore order as it's a reminder of the rules of the house.
The last time it was threatened was in 1994. Carrie Meek was ordering Maxine Waters to leave the floor but Waters refused. There were suggestions from the house to present the mace and it appeared Meek was about to order that to occur when Waters stopped. It's only occurred a handful of times and not in the last 100 years.
malaise
(268,930 posts)watoos
(7,142 posts)malaise
(268,930 posts)onenote
(42,694 posts)As the provision quoted by the OP indicates, the Sergeant at Arms has the same law enforcement authority as the Capitol Police. And the Capitol Police have very limited law enforcement authority. Specifically, the Capitol Police (and thus the Sergeant at Arms)
"shall have the power to enforce the provisions of this section, sections 1922, 1966, 1967, and 1969 of this title [1] (and regulations promulgated under section 1969 of this title), and chapter 51 of title 40, and to make arrests within the United States Capitol Buildings and Grounds for any violations of any law of the United States".
In other words, unless a witness wanders over to the Capitol Grounds, the Sergeant at Arms can't arrest that witness.
CTAtheist
(88 posts)"From the Republics earliest days, Congress has had the right to hold recalcitrant witnesses in contempt and even imprison them all by itself. In 1795, shortly after the Constitution was ratified, the House ordered its sergeant at arms to arrest and detain two men accused of trying to bribe members of Congress. The House held a trial and convicted one of them.
In 1821, the Supreme Court upheld Congresss right to hold people in contempt and imprison them. Without this power, the court ruled, Congress would be exposed to every indignity and interruption, that rudeness, caprice, or even conspiracy, may mediate against it. Later, in a 1927 case arising from the Teapot Dome scandal, the court upheld the Senates arrest of the brother of a former attorney general carried out in Ohio by the deputy sergeant at arms for ignoring a subpoena to testify.
The Congressional Research Service issued a report in July that confirmed Congresss inherent contempt powers. It explained how they work: The individual is brought before the House or Senate by the sergeant at arms, tried at the bar of the body, and can be imprisoned in the Capitol jail. Congress can do this, the report concluded, to compel them to testify or to punish them for their refusal to do so.
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/opinion/04tue4.html
Plus, I have heard of a story (I googled, but could not find it) where a Speaker ordered the Sergeant at Arms to go into D.C. to someone's house, arrest someone, and drag them to the floor of the House.
Pobeka
(4,999 posts)Onenote beat me to it! Thanks Onenote.
Pepsidog
(6,254 posts)watoos
(7,142 posts)Contempt of Congress.
Impeachment is the only option
watoos
(7,142 posts)Will not enforce contempt of Congress
corbettkroehler
(1,898 posts)If the people who were in contempt by refusing a subpoena entered the Capitol grounds, this approach might work. Otherwise, it's up to the DOJ, run by a man who finds Congress as a whole contemptible.