Gatsby

Any one?

Liberty Tree

Considering the makeup and actions of the Democrat House not only should there be no law against obstructing it there should be a reward for doing it.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

‘Obstruction of Congress’ is an utterly ridiculous impeachment charge
Josh Hammer

If one accepts the Democrats’ tendentious narrative of what t***spired on the now-infamous July 25 phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, their “abuse of power” impeachment article arguably fits within Alexander Hamilton’s description, in Federalist 65, of the Constitution’s “high crimes and misdemeanors” as an “abuse or violation of some public trust.” But their “obstruction of Congress” charge fails.

Worse, it is utterly nonsensical and misunderstands and undermines the entire separation-of-powers framework upon which our constitutional republic was built. To speak of a president “obstructing” Congress is to speak of spotting a unicorn. It is a nonsensical fantasy. And leveling the very allegation, in the first instance, evinces a fundamental constitutional illiteracy.

Our tripartite separation-of-powers edifice was hardly devised for the purpose of ensuring amiability between the legislative, executive and judicial branches. On the contrary, the Framers envisioned a national government in which the three branches existed in a state of continuous, unyielding tension with one another.

In particular, the two political branches — Congress and the executive branch — were meant to be jealous guardians of their own ambits and spheres of influence. Ceaseless tussling between them was to be the norm. “Ambition,” James Madison told us in Federalist 51, “must be made to counteract ambition.”

Accordingly, inter-branch political showdowns are routine. The president can veto legislation. Congress, using its power-of-the-purse prerogative, can defund p**********l priorities. And so forth. Each branch has various tools at its disposal to help “counteract [the] ambition” of the other.

That is how our separation of powers is supposed to function — in a state far closer to animosity than to geniality. Which is precisely why House Democrats alleging “obstruction of Congress” as an article of impeachment makes no sense.

If the president disagrees with what Congress is doing, then he should lawfully impede or obstruct its efforts. And the proper way for Congress to push back on a frustrative president is not to resort to the extreme and uniquely anti-democratic remedy of impeachment but to simply defund his legislative priorities or perhaps force a government shutdown.

Fact is, it is wholly improper — and counter to the spirit embodied in our constitutional framework — for Congress to attempt to impeach the president for obstructing its congressional responsibilities. To pout over purported “obstruction of Congress” is to moan that the president is reasserting the truism that he is, in fact, a separate branch of government and capable of pushing back on the other branches.

By attempting to impeach the president because he wields p**********l power, House Democrats reveal that it is they themselves who are the ones abusing power.

By contrast, an article of impeachment for “obstruction of justice,” especially if it were to entail the president directly defying a judicial order to heed a congressional subpoena, would carry more heft. Obstruction of justice has historically been cited in articles of impeachment. Not so the utter fabrication that is “obstruction of Congress.”

In resigning themselves to such a farcical impeachment article, especially in lieu of their nixing previously floated articles pertaining to either bribery or the Mueller report, House Democrats have hoisted themselves on their own petard. They have finally laid out their poker hand for the American people to see; turns out they were bluffing all along.

Their ruse, which is already polling heavily underwater in many pivotal swing states, will only go further south from here. Speaker Nancy Pelosi will likely be able to cobble together a bare majority to impeach, but the president’s inevitable acquittal in the Senate will redound to Republicans’ e*******l interest next November.

To impeach for “obstruction of Congress” is akin to impeaching James Madison, the father of the Constitution, himself. And as much as modern Democrats loathe constitutional guardrails, surely that is too much for the American people as a whole.

Lt. Rob Polans ret.

There isn't one.

Carol Kelly

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

Contempt of Congress: Obstructing the work of the United States Congress or one of its committees. Historically, the bribery of a U.S. Senator or U.S. Representative was considered contempt of Congress. In modern times, contempt of Congress has generally applied to the refusal to comply with a subpoena issued by a Congressional committee or subcommittee—usually seeking to compel either testimony or the production of requested documents.

Howsomeever, the House cannot compel the Executive Branch to forfeit Executive Privilege at their whim, but the Supreme Court can rule on the legitimacy of the House's subpoenas. Schiff, Nader and Co. sent no request for review to SCOTUS because they understood they would fail. The House intentions were
not to depose the President, they had no legitimate case, but rather to dirty him up as much as possible preparing for the upcoming e******n. These lying evil despots know well there are many people so lazy and so easily led that any slander repeated often enough becomes irrefutable T***h to them. Know any progressives on this forum who meets that description?

woodguru

So the next time the GOP has control dems simply flip investigations off?

Liberty Tree

The GOP will not run the same sham the Democrats did. By the way, "Fast and Furious" ring a bell?

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

They never have flipped the investigation switch off in the past. They have already said that if the Senate does not allow witnesses they will open another impeachment and subpoena Bolton. This time they will probably go thru the District Courts and allow it to work up to the Supreme Court. Remember! No crime was committed unless, as Blade explained, we prosecute for thought crimes

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

Since you asked, it's more commonly called/known as 'obstruction of justice'....

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34304.pdf

Gatsby

Justice falls within the realm of the Judicial Branch of our government, not the Congress.

Congress may not circumvent the Judicial Branch.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

Presuming you have read my previous link:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/congressional-subpoena-power-and-executive-privilege-coming-showdown-between-branches

Excerpt...

The courts have long reaffirmed Congress’s constitutional authority to issue and enforce subpoenas. As the Congressional Research Service explained in 2017:

"Congress has three formal methods by which it can combat non-compliance with a duly issued subpoena. Each of these methods invokes the authority of a separate branch of government. First, the long dormant inherent contempt power permits Congress to rely on its own constitutional authority to detain and imprison a contemnor until the individual complies with congressional demands. Second, the criminal contempt statute permits Congress to certify a contempt citation to the executive branch for the criminal prosecution of the contemnor. Finally, Congress may rely on the judicial branch to enforce a congressional subpoena. Under this procedure, Congress may seek a civil judgment from a federal court declaring that the individual in question is legally obligated to comply with the congressional subpoena."

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

That is only true if the subpoenas are based on credible evidence.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

The ability of Congress to subpoena executive branch officials is well established as part of its legislative powers in Article I of the Constitution. The courts have reasoned that to legislate effectively, Congress must be able to issue subpoenas demanding the production of evidence.

Compliance with a lawful congressional subpoena is not optional. The House can go to court and attempt to get the subpoena enforced. Alternatively, it can hold the recipient in contempt of Congress (that’s a misdemeanor, with a jail sentence). The largest response, of course, is an article of impeachment.

Congress may rely on the judicial branch to enforce a congressional subpoena. Under this procedure, Congress may seek a civil judgment from a federal court declaring that the individual in question is legally obligated to comply with the congressional subpoena.

Gatsby

Congress issued subpoenas, when those subpoenas were appealed to the courts Congress withdrew

the subpoenas, denying the jurisdiction of the courts to decide the issue. Congress then arbitrarily

declared that obstruction occurred, attempting to put themselves above both the Executive and the

Judiciary branches of government. Please note that the charge was NOT obstructing justice.