Explaining Congress’S Contempt Power

The Supreme Court rules it’s Congress’s duty to investigate ‘corruption [or] maladministration…in the agencies of Government.’ Explaining Congress’s Contempt PowerBy Cliff Montgomery – Aug. 21st, 2007There recently has been a lot of talk about finding some Bush Administration officials in contempt of Congress. But exactly what does that mean? And is it constitutional?Below we quote from a July 24th, 2007 Congressional Research Service report on the power of Congress to find individuals in contempt of America’s Legislative Branch:“Congress’s contempt power is the means by which Congress responds to certain acts that in its view obstruct the legislative process. Contempt may be used either to coerce compliance (inherent contempt), punish the contemnor (criminal contempt), and/or to remove the obstruction (civil contempt).”Although arguably any action that directly obstructs the effort of Congress to exercise its constitutional powers may constitute a contempt, in the last seventy years the contempt power (primarily through the criminal contempt process) has generally been employed only in instances of refusals of witnesses to appear before committees, to respond to questions, or to produce documents.”The power of Congress to punish for contempt is inextricably related to the power of Congress to investigate.”Generally speaking, Congress’s authority to investigate and obtain information, including but not limited to confidential information, is extremely broad.”While there is no express provision of the Constitution or specific statute authorizing the conduct of congressional oversight or  investigations, the Supreme Court has firmly established that such power is essential to the legislative function as to be implied from the general vesting of legislative powers in Congress.”The broad legislative authority to seek and enforce informational demands was unequivocally established in two Supreme Court rulings arising out of the 1920’s Teapot Dome scandal.”In McGrain v. Daugherty, which arose out of the exercise of the Senate’s inherent contempt power, the Supreme Court described the power of inquiry, with the accompanying process to enforce it, as ‘an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function.'”The Court explained:

A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change; and where the legislative body does not itself possess the requisite information – which not infrequently is true – recourse must be had to otherswho possess it.Experience has taught that mere requests for such information often are unavailing, and also that information which is volunteered is not always accurate or complete; so some means of compulsion are essential to obtain that which is needed.All this was true before and when the Constitution was framed and adopted. In that period the power of inquiry – with enforcing process – was regarded and employed as a necessary and appropriate attribute of the power to legislate – indeed, was treated as inhering in it.Thus there is ample warrant for thinking, as we do, that the constitutional provisions which commit thelegislative function to the two houses are intended to include this attribute to the end that the function may be effectively exercised.

“Subsequent Supreme Court rulings have consistently reiterated and reinforced the breadth of Congress’s investigative authority. For example, in Eastland v. United States Servicemen’s Fund, the Court explained that ‘[t]he scope of [Congress’s] power of inquiry … is as penetrating and far-reaching as the potential power to enact and appropriate under the Constitution.'” In addition, the Court in Watkins v. United States, described the breadth of the power of inquiry. According to the Court, Congress’s power ‘to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process. That power is broad. It encompasses inquiries concerning the administration of existing laws as well as proposed or possibly needed statutes.'”The Court did not limit the power of congressional inquiry to cases of ‘wrongdoing.'”It emphasized, however, that Congress’s investigative power is at its peak when the subject is alleged waste, fraud, abuse, or maladministration within a government department.”The investigative power, the Court stated, ‘comprehends probes into departments of the Federal Government to expose corruption, inefficiency, or waste.’“ ‘[T]he first Congresses,’ held ‘inquiries dealing with suspected corruption or mismanagement by government officials’ and subsequently, in a series of decisions, ‘[t]he Court recognized the danger to effective and honest conduct of the Government if the legislative power to probe corruption in the Executive Branch were unduly hampered.'”Accordingly, the Court now clearly recognizes ‘the power of the Congress to inquire into and publicize corruption, maladministration, or inefficiencies in the agencies of Government.'”The inherent contempt power is not specified in a statute or constitutional provision, but has been deemed implicit in the Constitution’s grant to Congress of all legislative powers.”Like what you’re reading so far? Then why not order a full year (52 issues) ofe-newsletter for only $15? A major article covering an story not being told in the Corporate Press will be delivered to your email every Monday morning for a full year, for less than 30 cents an issue. Order Now!