Why do Democrats think they can illegally subpoena the Executive branch?

Question

28 U.S.C. § 1365, specifically exempts subpoenas to the Executive branch.

The criminal contempt mechanism, see 2 U.S.C. § 192, which punishes as a misdemeanor a refusal to testify or produce documents to Congress, requires a referral to the Justice Department, which is not likely to pursue compliance in the likely event that the President asserts executive privilege in response to the request for certain documents or testimony

Do Democrats not care about our Constitution and the law?

Answer 1

Of course they care about the Constitution and the law so long as they are accusing the President of not complying with it. If it pertains to them going on a witch hunt--if they have to violate the law to get what they want, they don't see it as a problem and they don't see how anyone else could see it as a problem, either. Thanks for explaining why it IS a problem and why it IS illegal to subpoena the executive branch.

Answer 2

That is nonsense.

28 U.S.C. § 1365 gives United States District Court for the District of Columbia judicial authority in the matter of Senate subpoenas.

Nowhere does it mention the Justice department, and it specifically says that it does not apply to the executive branch unless the refusal is based on personal privilege or objection and is not based on a governmental privilege.

2 U.S.C. § 192 is irrelevant.

It is you who obviously do not care about the constitution. You are probably one of those idiots who think the US Constitution includes some mention of Christianity, or God, or Jesus.

Answer 3

You might want to read 28 U.S.C. § 1365 again, if you even did in the first place, because you have no clue what it actually says.

It says the US District Court for DC has jurisdiction in any civil action brought by the Senate.

Here is the exact section on the executive branch, and i quote:
"This section shall not apply [DC courts having jurisdiction] to an action to enforce, to secure a declaratory judgment concerning the validity of, or to prevent a threatened refusal to comply with, any subpena or order issued to an officer or employee of the executive branch of the Federal Government acting within his or her official capacity, except that this section shall apply if the refusal to comply is based on the assertion of a personal privilege or objection and is not based on a governmental privilege or objection the assertion of which has been authorized by the executive branch of the Federal Government."

So it says DC courts will not have jurisdiction to GET these statements from the executive branch if the official was acting within, and heres the big part, their OFFICIAL CAPACITY, UNLESS the objection is personal in nature and then the DC courts do have jurisdiction.

Now the issue was whether people were acting in their official capacities when wrongdoings occured.

I tend to think not.

you should learn how to read before spouting off.
Do NOT cite sources and then misrepresent them.

and to add on: yes, Nixon and Clinton BOTH tried to use this tactic, and it didnt work. It will not work in this case either.

Answer 4

Please, when you cite a resource make sure you have fully read and understand it. People, including the president, were subpoenaed in Clinton and Nixon administrations. They tried to balk too but in the end they had no choice but testify under oath. If those people have nothing to hide what is the big deal. Go say your piece and leave. If you tell the truth that will end it. If you are lying than you should pay the price.

Answer 5

This rule only applies if the subpoena would threaten national security or cause the executive to be unable to perform their duties. It doesn't apply if the refusal to honor the subpoena is for personal objections or opinions. Nixon tried this tactic too, and failed, as will Bush.

Answer 6

If what you're saying is true than there has been many a breeches of that part of the constitution and the laws. Think back to the Nixon reign and those top officials that were subpoenaed and even newer than that is the Clinton administration. I believe that it was also done during the Reagan administration with the Iran-Contra scandal.

Answer 7

remember till now then they by no skill concept any of what is going on in government as we communicate could be. It grew to become right into a distinctly desirable gadget as designed. that's thoroughly constitutional, has been for the reason that continuously. to quote examples in modern-day historic previous; Nixon and Watergate, Reagan and Iran/Contra Affair, Clinton and Monica.

Answer 8

"28 U.S.C. § 1365, specifically exempts subpoenas to the Executive branch" - uh, no, it doesn't, and you're just trying to blow smoke.

Answer 9

I don't really know law... but I know enough to know that different things can be interpreted differently... and I don't know how this would all play out...

side question: so... all Bill Clinton had to do was just refuse to testify?

interesting...

and did you just ask if Democrats didn't care about our constitution? Is this a joke?

Answer 10

It is not a matter of "illegal subpoena". It is a matter of appropriate excercise of the Legislature's check and balance function toward the Executive.