Good question pal! Many of us have wondered the same damn thing. From TPM muckraker:
In a motion hearing in federal court today, U.S. District Judge John Bates questioned why Congress didn't simply arrest former White House counsel Harriet Miers and Chief of Staff Josh Bolten after both refused to respond to subpoenas issued by the House Judiciary Committee:
Congress has the authority to hold someone in contempt, U.S. District Judge John Bates said. Did it really need to go to court? House counsel Irvin Nathan said it did.
The Constitution gives Congress the ability to arrest and hold people that are in contempt of a congressional subpoena. It has been interpreted this way since SCOTUS ruled in the 1800's:
The Supreme Court upheld the practice in 1821, reasoning that without it, Congress "would be exposed to every indignity and interruption that rudeness, caprice or even conspiracy may mediate against it." The ruling gave Congress the right to imprison uncooperative witnesses for contempt, but for no longer than the duration of the Congress that passed the citation.
This is a no- brainer for me. It shows once again how spineless these Democrats really are. Perhaps BushCo would take them more seriously if they tried it. fuckers..
