OT: Constitution Question

J

Jim Thompson

Guest
Old enough to remember McCarthy and Kefauver Committee Congressional
Hearings, I've always been puzzled by where Congress thinks they
garnered the right to issue subpoenas.

Is it in some part of the Constitution that I've missed?

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
 
I read in sci.electronics.design that Jim Thompson
<thegreatone@example.com> wrote (in <lj1p319htoefhuobhtvrf583ppt10678sv@
4ax.com>) about 'OT: Constitution Question', on Sat, 19 Mar 2005:
Old enough to remember McCarthy and Kefauver Committee Congressional
Hearings, I've always been puzzled by where Congress thinks they
garnered the right to issue subpoenas.

Is it in some part of the Constitution that I've missed?
Click to expand...
It's probably in that long passage printed in invisible ink.

Of course, ALL of the British Constitution is printed in invisible ink.
It prevents arguments about what the words mean 'EXACTLY!!!!'.

We have recently learned that it says a great deal more about Royal
weddings than about imprisoning people without trial.(;-)
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
There are two sides to every question, except
'What is a Moebius strip?'
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk
 
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 20:57:49 +0000, John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote (in <lj1p319htoefhuobhtvrf583ppt10678sv@
4ax.com>) about 'OT: Constitution Question', on Sat, 19 Mar 2005:
Old enough to remember McCarthy and Kefauver Committee Congressional
Hearings, I've always been puzzled by where Congress thinks they
garnered the right to issue subpoenas.

Is it in some part of the Constitution that I've missed?

It's probably in that long passage printed in invisible ink.

Of course, ALL of the British Constitution is printed in invisible ink.
It prevents arguments about what the words mean 'EXACTLY!!!!'.

We have recently learned that it says a great deal more about Royal
weddings than about imprisoning people without trial.(;-)
Click to expand...
Well, You know what is important ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
 
Jim Thompson wrote:
Old enough to remember McCarthy and Kefauver Committee Congressional
Hearings, I've always been puzzled by where Congress thinks they
garnered the right to issue subpoenas.

Is it in some part of the Constitution that I've missed?

...Jim Thompson
Click to expand...
Good afternoon, Mr. Thompson. In Article I, Section 8, in the
enumeration of powers of Congress:

The Congress shall have Power...To constitute Tribunals inferior to the
supreme Court...

This power of tribunal (court-like hearings with associated powers of
subpoena and abilities to compel testimony similar to courts) actually
goes back, I believe, to the 1500s in England with Parliament. Your
sense that this power is ripe for abuse in the wrong hands is not
misplaced.

Nice to be able to help you for a change.

Thanks
Chris
 
On 19 Mar 2005 15:23:29 -0800, "Chris" <cfoley1064@yahoo.com> wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
Old enough to remember McCarthy and Kefauver Committee Congressional
Hearings, I've always been puzzled by where Congress thinks they
garnered the right to issue subpoenas.

Is it in some part of the Constitution that I've missed?

...Jim Thompson

Good afternoon, Mr. Thompson. In Article I, Section 8, in the
enumeration of powers of Congress:

The Congress shall have Power...To constitute Tribunals inferior to the
supreme Court...

This power of tribunal (court-like hearings with associated powers of
subpoena and abilities to compel testimony similar to courts) actually
goes back, I believe, to the 1500s in England with Parliament. Your
sense that this power is ripe for abuse in the wrong hands is not
misplaced.

Nice to be able to help you for a change.

Thanks
Chris
Click to expand...
Thanks! Our only safety rests in "inferior to the supreme Court..."

Things are certainly getting out of hand... time for some tar and
feathers ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
 
Jim Thompson wrote:

Old enough to remember McCarthy and Kefauver Committee Congressional
Hearings, I've always been puzzled by where Congress thinks they
garnered the right to issue subpoenas.

Is it in some part of the Constitution that I've missed?

...Jim Thompson
Take a look at:
Click to expand...

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL31836.pdf
 
In article <cgdp31pe415pm632sbdn3ur36ed98jdbre@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote:
[...]
Things are certainly getting out of hand... time for some tar and
feathers ;-)
Click to expand...
->"getting out of hand"<-


Nero did not actually fiddle while Rome burned. For that matter he
actually did some nice urban renewal after the fires went out.

Today I find myself wondering if the National League has WMDs or if the
members are all about to retire and suck SSI dry or if they are hoarding
all the oil or if N. Korea is about to win the world series.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge
 
I read in sci.electronics.design that Chris <cfoley1064@yahoo.com> wrote
(in <1111274609.760741.102990@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>) about 'OT:
Constitution Question', on Sat, 19 Mar 2005:

This power of tribunal (court-like hearings with associated powers of
subpoena and abilities to compel testimony similar to courts) actually
goes back, I believe, to the 1500s in England with Parliament. Your
sense that this power is ripe for abuse in the wrong hands is not
misplaced.
Click to expand...
Probably before 1500. However, I believe our Parliament no longer has
such powers in normal circumstances. It can *resolve* to set up a
tribunal with power of subpoena, but such a body is not part of
Parliament itself.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
There are two sides to every question, except
'What is a Moebius strip?'
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk
 
Chris wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

Old enough to remember McCarthy and Kefauver Committee Congressional
Hearings, I've always been puzzled by where Congress thinks they
garnered the right to issue subpoenas.

Is it in some part of the Constitution that I've missed?

...Jim Thompson


Good afternoon, Mr. Thompson. In Article I, Section 8, in the
enumeration of powers of Congress:

The Congress shall have Power...To constitute Tribunals inferior to the
supreme Court...

This power of tribunal (court-like hearings with associated powers of
subpoena and abilities to compel testimony similar to courts) actually
goes back, I believe, to the 1500s in England with Parliament. Your
sense that this power is ripe for abuse in the wrong hands is not
misplaced.

Nice to be able to help you for a change.

Thanks
Chris

"..*inferior* to the supreme court..." (emphasis added) should then
Click to expand...
mean that the supreme court can overturn congressional rulings??
 
Robert Baer wrote:

"..*inferior* to the supreme court..." (emphasis added) should
then
mean that the supreme court can overturn congressional rulings??
Click to expand...
We all know the Supremes can overturn unconstitutional laws. I believe
the Tribunal power clause means they theoretically can overturn
judicial rulings of Congress too, such as the contempt citations Mr.
Thompson was talking about. But, Bennett Price's link indicates that
SCOTUS has always been leery of disturbing these waters. One gets the
feeling that, by leaving it alone, they're trying to avoid having to
manufacture law.

That works for me. ;-)

Good luck
Chris
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top