The Supreme Court has held that the purpose of this statute is merely supplementary of the power retained by Congress, and all constitutional objections to it were overruled. Because Congress has invoked the aid of the federal judicial system in protecting itself against contumacious conduct, the consequence, the Court has asserted numerous times, is that the duty has been conferred upon the federal courts to accord a person prosecuted for his statutory offense every safeguard that the law accords in all other federal criminal cases, and the discussion in previous sections of many reversals of contempt convictions bears witness to the assertion in practice.
What constitutional protections ordinarily necessitated by due process requirements, such as notice, right to counsel, confrontation, and the like, prevail in a contempt trial before the bar of one House or the other is an open question.
It has long been settled that the courts may not intervene directly to restrain the carrying out of an investigation or the manner of an investigation, and that a witness who believes the inquiry to be illegal or otherwise invalid in order to raise the issue must place himself in contempt and raise his beliefs as affirmative defenses on his criminal prosecution. This understanding was sharply reinforced when the Court held that the speech-or-debate clause utterly foreclosed judicial interference with the conduct of a congressional investigation, through review of the propriety of subpoenas or otherwise.
Dimock, Congressional Investigating Committees ch. Daugherty, U. United States, U. See also Eastland v. Thompson, U. The internal quotations are from Kilbourn v. Such an inquiry was made. Globe, 36th Congress, 1st sess. But see Hutcheson v. Brimson, U. Douds, U. Sweezy v. New Hampshire, U. United States, F. It would be hard to conceive of there being too much talk about the practical concerns.
For contrasting views of the reach of this statement, compare United States v. Rumely, U. Attorney General of New Hampshire, U. In times of political passion, dishonest or vindicative motives are readily attributable to legislative conduct and as readily believed. Courts are not the place for such controversies.
Brandhove, U. For a statement of the traditional unwillingness to inquire into congressional motives in the judging of legislation, see United States v. But note that in Jenkins v. McKeithen, U. But note that in Stamler v. Willis, F. Justices Black and Douglas would have construed the resolution as granting the authority and would have voided it under the First Amendment. See also Sacher v. Virginia ex rel.
Committee, U. In Deutch v. Justices Frankfurter, Clark, Harlan, and Whittaker dissented, arguing that any argument on pertinency had been waived but in any event thinking it had been established. In Russell v. Indictments, which merely set forth the offense in the words of the contempt statute, the Court asserted, in alleging that the unanswered questions were pertinent to the subject under inquiry but not identifying the subject in detail, are defective because they do not inform defendants what they must be prepared to meet and do not enable courts to decide whether the facts alleged are sufficient to support convictions.
Justice Stewart for the Court noted that the indicia of subject matter under inquiry were varied and contradictory, thus necessitating a precise governmental statement of particulars. Justices Harlan and Clark in dissent contended that it was sufficient for the government to establish pertinency at trial and noted that no objections relating to pertinency had been made at the hearings. Russell was cited in the per curiam reversals in Grumman v. The subcommittee had reasonable ground to suppose that the petitioner was an active Communist Party member, and that as such he possessed information that would substantially aid it in its legislative investigation.
In both cases, the dissenters, Chief Justice Warren and Justices Black, Douglas, and Brennan argued that the Committee action was invalid because it was intended to harass persons who had publicly criticized committee activities.
But, in United States v. Bryan, U. Justice Brennan concurred solely because the witness had not claimed the privilege against self-incrimination but he would have voted to reverse the conviction had there been a claim. Chief Justice Warren and Justice Douglas dissented on due process grounds. Justices Black, Frankfurter, and White did not participate. At the time of the decision, the Self-incrimination Clause did not restrain the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, so that it was no violation of the clause for either the Federal Government or the states to compel testimony which would incriminate the witness in the other jurisdiction.
United States v. Murdock, U. Ogul, Morris S. Congress Oversees the Bureaucracy. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, Perino, Michael. New York: Penguin Press, Featured Search Historical Highlights of the House. Learn about Foreign Leader Addresses. Featured Search the People of the House. Majority Leaders. Bean Soup!
Featured Black Americans in Congress. Featured Mace of the U. House of Represen- tatives. House Trivia Timeline. Featured Resources for National History Day Attorney in Contempt. Although the Constitution does not expressly authorize Congress to conduct investigations, Congress — and the courts — have long recognized that Congress has an inherent, constitutional prerogative to conduct investigations.
In fact, the first congressional investigation occurred as early as , when the House of Representatives convened a committee to investigate the defeat of General Arthur St. Clair in the Battle of the Wabash in what was then known as the Northwest Territory and now known as Ohio.
As a result, a congressional committee has broad discretion regarding both the scope of its investigation and the relevance of the information it requests.
Although congressional authority to investigate is broad, it is not unlimited. For example, Congress has no general authority to investigate the purely private affair of an ordinary citizen.
0コメント