Could someone Please Explain Inherent contempt again for me?

[bluestarone]

If the house uses it, and DOES used Sergeant at arms arrest someone, (not saying they will) Does The person arrested have ANY contact with anyone other than their lawyer? I'm thinking if nothing else this would take them out of the picture of protecting anybody. If it were Barr for instance, the house could use inherent contempt and while he's in the house refuses to answer questions then use it. No more communication with tRUMPY. Am i dreaming BIG here? If they pick and choose who use the inherent contempt on it might help? TY in advance!

[PoliticAverse]

1. One person held was held in a hotel. A person might also be held in a room in the Capitol building.

They would, of course, have access to their attorney.

For history and details on Congress' contempt power, see:

Congressional Research Service
Congress’s Contempt Power and the Enforcement of Congressional Subpoenas: Law, History, Practice, and Procedure
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34097.pdf

[bluestarone]

2. TY for the site

Lot for my mind to absorb!

[bluestarone]

3. I'll try one more time as i DO NOT understand it all

If the house uses inherent contempt, (like on Barr for instance) can Barr refuse to show? if he does what would be the next step for the House? TKS again

[tritsofme]

4. That's what we call a constitutional crisis.

[bluestarone]

5. My fear as well!

[PoliticAverse]

6. No, the courts have found Congress has the power of arrest. No "crisis". n/t

[tritsofme]

10. The crisis comes when executive branch officials prevent the arrest.

[PoliticAverse]

12. Well then it would go to the courts and if the courts ruled in favor of the House...

it'd be 2 branches to 1 and if the Executive branch still refused to comply at that point you could say there's a
"constitutional crisis".

[PoliticAverse]

7. Sure he might still refuse. And Congress can then direct...

the Sergeant-at-Arms to bring the individual before Congress to be tried for contempt.

From the Congressional Research report:

These traditional methods may be explained by using as an illustration Anderson v. Dunn. ... In 1818, a Member of the House of Representatives accused Anderson, a non-Member, of trying to bribe him. ... The House adopted a resolution pursuant to which the Speaker ordered the Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest Anderson and bring him before the bar of the House (to answer the charge). When Anderson appeared, the Speaker informed him why he had been brought before the House and asked if he had any requests for assistance in answering the charge. Anderson stated his requests, and the House granted him counsel, compulsory process for defense witnesses, and a copy,of the accusatory letter. Anderson called his witnesses; the House heard and questioned them and him. It then passed a resolution finding him guilty of contempt and directing the Speaker to reprimand him and then to discharge him from custody. The patternwas thereby established of attachment by the Sergeant-at-Arms; appearance before the bar; provision for specification of charges, identification of the accuser, compulsory process, counsel, and a hearing; determination of guilt; imposition of penalty.

[bluestarone]

8. TY again

There might be hope. ( i'm pretty sure they (the house) won't go there though).

[StarfishSaver]

9. The Serveant-at-Arms jurisdiction is limited to the Capitol Complex and immediately surrounding area

Capitol Police can't make arrests outside of that area. The only exception is if they witness a violent crime in action - in such cases, they can take steps to stop the commission of the crime and take suspects into custody. Otherwise, they can't make arrests off of Capitol grounds and a specific perimeter - which Treasury, DOJ, the White House, etc. are outside of.

[PoliticAverse]

11. Considering that the House directed the Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest someone "wherever to be found"

and that he did so and the arrest was upheld by the Supreme Court I'd say they do have the power to do so again:

Representatives had resolved that the plaintiff had been guilty of a breach of the privileges of the House, and of a high contempt of the dignity and authority of the same, and had ordered that the Speaker should issue his warrant to the Sergeant at Arms commanding him to take the plaintiff into custody, wherever to be found, and to have him before the said House to answer to the said charge, and that the Speaker did accordingly issue such a warrant, reciting the said resolution and order and commanding the Sergeant at Arms to take the plaintiff into custody, &c., and delivered the said warrant to the defendant, by virtue of which warrant the defendant arrested the plaintiff and conveyed him to the bar of the House

Anderson v. Dunn, 19 U.S. 204 (1821)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/19/204/
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/85326/anderson-v-dunn/

[StarfishSaver]

13. No. Jurisdiction and legal precedent don''t work like that

First, the Anderson case doesn't specify where the arrest was made nor does it indicate that the arrest was made outside of the Sergeant-at-Arms' jurisdiction at the time. And no matter what a warrant may say, it can't trump jurisdiction; "wherever he may be found," is understood to mean within the jurisdiction of the arresting body since no one can expand jurisdiction just by saying they are.

Moreover, not only are Washington DC's geography and boundaries very different than they were 200 years ago, the Sergeant at Arms' jurisdiction is not the same as it was in 1821. It's now set forth in and limited by statute.

The fact that that a long-ago warrant said "wherever he may be found" and a 19th Century Supreme Court upheld an inherent contempt arrest made pursuant thereto doesn't give the Sergeant-at-Ams and Capitol Police have unlimited jurisdiction to make arrests wherever they choose today.

Trust me... Capital Police does not have jurisdiction to show up at DOJ and take the Attorney General into custody.

[PoliticAverse]

14. Well if you don't like the "19th Century Supreme Court" case, in 1927 the Supreme Court

upheld the Senate's ability to send the deputy Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest someone in Ohio:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGrain_v._Daugherty

Trust the Supreme Court... Congress can compel someone to appear including by arrest.

[StarfishSaver]

15. I don't disagree that the House can compel a witness to appear and even arrest them

The problem is how and where the arrest will take place. And while McGrain did involve someone arrested out of state, the Court's ruling addressed and upheld the Senate's subject-matter jurisdiction, not geographic jurisdiction.

And my reading of the statutes and case law is that the Capitol Police do not have sufficient jurisdiction to make an arrest beyond Capitol grounds. I could be wrong, my not being infallible, but that's how I see it. And I doubt anyone in the administration is going to submit to being arrested by the Capitol Police - even if they could get anywhere near them.

I see this is a job for the U.S. Marshals ...