You might consult with G. Gordon Liddy about the ability of the House to cited someone for contempt. He recieved a six month suspended sentence.

"Contempt of Congress is any improper attempt to obstruct the legislative process, usually by a refusal to provide information that Congress has requested. The contempt power is critical to Congress's ability to investigate the activities of the executive branch or any issue about which it is considering enacting legislation. Congress can use contempt citations against witnesses who refuse to testify or to produce required evidence. Those found guilty of contempt of Congress may go to prison.

There are three methods of prosecuting for contempt of Congress. First, Congress can try contempt cases itself. In 1848 and 1871 the Senate did just that, imprisoning newspaper reporters in the Capitol for not revealing the source of the Senate secrets they had published. Congress can also turn contempt cases over to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution. However, juries have often acquitted individuals charged with contempt, especially if it appears that the congressional committee abused its power. For example, between 1950 and 1966 the House Un-American Activities Committee issued 133 contempt citations, but only nine people were convicted. Finally, the Senate or House can also file civil charges of contempt. Using this procedure, a federal judge determines whether a question asked by Congress was legitimate. If the judge orders a witness to answer and the witness refuses, then the witness would be in contempt of court and could be fined or imprisoned. For example, during the Watergate investigation the House cited G. Gordon Liddy for contempt for refusing to testify before a House committee. A federal judge gave Liddy a suspended six-month sentence.

The Supreme Court has upheld Congress's power to punish for contempt but has specified some limitations against its unreasonable use. In the case of McGrain v. Daugherty in 1927, the Court ruled that “a legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information…. Experience has taught that mere requests for such information often are unavailing, and also that information which is volunteered is not always accurate or complete; so some means of compulsion are essential to obtain that which is needed.”

http://www.answers.com/topic/contempt-of-congress

Liddy worked under the authority of the executive branch. The ruling circumscribed the president's claim of "executive privilege", and thus protect Liddy. All congressmen have denounced exec privilege, all presidents embrace it.


I do not believe that a private citizen has ever been compelled to testify in Congress. Imunity is offered precisely because they cannot compel.

What about that baseball player that did the steroids that told em he didn't?

I'm wondering what in heck our elected officials are doing investigating stuff like that for.

__________________
Jim

He came voluntarily (under subpoena) and then allegedly lied under oath. Oops. I believe his case was referred to the Justice Department for prosecution, but I'm not certain.

I agree with you, WTF is congress doing mucking about in baseball? They got nuthin' else to do? And why do the leagues have a monopoly? Want to know why tickets cost so much?

Failure to comply with Congressional subpoena isn't contempt of Congress subject to the procedures already detailed in a previous post?

Congress can subpoena witnesses, or force them to testify under oath, before its committees. This authority comes from the Constitution's grant to Congress of “all legislative powers” (Article 1, Section 1). Witnesses are subpoenaed to provide information that will assist committees in preparing legislation. In the case of Mc-Grain v. Daugherty (1927), the Supreme Court recognized that Congress could subpoena even private citizens to testify. The Court noted that since not everyone would volunteer needed information, “some means of compulsion are essential to obtain what is needed.” Witnesses who refuse to respond to a congressional subpoena, or refuse to give information (unless they invoke their 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination) may be found in contempt of Congress and sent to prison.

The most famous use of the congressional subpoena occurred in 1973, when the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities (popularly known as the Watergate Committee) subpoenaed the tape recordings that President Richard M. Nixon had secretly made of White House conversations. This was the first time that Congress had ever subpoenaed a President. Nixon tried to withhold the tapes, claiming executive privilege (the right of the President not to release internal documents of the administration to the Congress). The courts ruled that the President could not use executive privilege as blanket protection, but the White House then released only a heavily edited version of the tapes. In June 1974, in United States v. Nixon, the Supreme Court ruled that executive privilege was a limited power and that the President must turn over all of the requested tapes to a special prosecutor investigating the Watergate incident. The opening of these tapes led Congress to begin impeachment proceedings against the President, causing Nixon to resign.


Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/subpoena-power-of-congress#ixzz1YY0Rg9wQ

I plead Jackson's precedent: Congress can subpoena people all they want: To compel testimony requires collaboration with the executive. If the president says, "Not right now, boys." What can Congress do?

Old Hickory ain't ****e! That was then this is now, at least since 1927!

A landmark decision of the Supreme Court, McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 47 S.Ct. 319, 71 L.Ed. 580 (1927), recognized the implicit power of either House of Congress to hold a witness in a congressional investigation in Contempt for a refusal to honor its summons or to respond to its questions.
During the mid-1920s, there were numerous allegations that the U.S. Justice Department was being mismanaged by its administrator, harry daugherty, the attorney general of the United States. In response to the charges, the Senate passed a resolution that empowered an investigatory committee to hear evidence as to whether Daugherty failed to prosecute various violations of the antitrust laws. Mally S. Daugherty, who was a bank president as well as the brother of the attorney general, refused to respond to a subpoena that was issued by the committee on two occasions, ordering him to appear and to bring designated bank ledgers. The president pro tempore of the Senate issued a warrant to his sergeant at arms that Mally Daugherty be taken into custody. A deputy of the sergeant at arms took Daugherty into custody in Cincinnati, Ohio. Daugherty brought a Habeas Corpus action for his release in federal district court in Ohio. The court declared that the attachment and detention of the witness was void on the ground that the Senate exceeded its powers in directing the investigation and in ordering the seizure of Daugherty. The deputy made a direct appeal to the Supreme Court, which accepted the case for review.
The Court defined two issues: whether the Senate or House of Representatives has authority to use its own process to compel a private person to appear as a witness and to testify before it or one of its committees in order that Congress can perform a legislative function that it has under the Constitution; and whether the process that was used in this case was directed toward that purpose. Before addressing those questions, however, the Court reviewed some of Daugherty's assertions. Daugherty argued that there was no statutory provision for a deputy and that even if there were, the deputy had no power to execute the warrant, since it was addressed to the sergeant at arms. The Court disagreed. It explained that deputies were authorized to act for the sergeant at arms by virtue of a standing order adopted by the Senate and that Congress recognized their status by establishing and making appropriations for their compensation.
Daugherty also used the Fourth Amendment provision that "no warrants shall issue, but upon Probable Cause, supported by oath or affirmation," to assert that the warrant was void because its basis was an unsworn committee report. The Court rejected this argument on the ground that the committee members were acting pursuant to their oath as Senators when they issued the warrant. When committee members act on matters within their knowledge, probable cause exists for the action of the committee. The warrant withstood constitutional muster.
Daugherty also claimed that the warrant was deficient because it stated that he be "brought before the bar of the Senate then and there" to testify. It was not a subpoena to appear before the Senate, nor did he refuse to do so. The Court dismissed this assertion, because it considered the warrant an auxiliary process used by the committee that was acting for the Senate to compel the witness to provide testimony sought by the subpoena.
The Court finally addressed the central issues of the case: the constitutional authority of the Senate to act in such a manner; and whether the warrant in this case was appropriate. It reasoned that while the power to investigate was not explicitly given to Congress by the Constitution, it was traditionally recognized as implicit in the legislative function since it is a means to obtain necessary information. The Court also referred to various federal laws that demonstrated that either house of Congress has the power to commence investigations and gather evidence concerning activities within its jurisdiction; that committees may conduct such investigations; that in order to fully implement the power to investigate, either house may punish uncooperative witnesses; and witnesses may be given Immunity from criminal prosecutions that derive from their testimonies before the committees. Based upon tradition and statutes, the Court concluded that each house of Congress has auxiliary powers that are essential in order to effectuate its express powers, but neither house has unlimited "general" power to investigate private matters and force testimony. The Senate acted within its powers when it authorized a committee to investigate Daugherty. When the committee sought Daugherty's testimony, it was as a means to perform a legislative function since the purpose of the inquiry was to determine whether the attorney general and the Department of Justice—subjects of congressional regulations and appropriations—were properly performing their duties. The Court deemed that Daugherty's seizure and detention were appropriate because of his wrongful refusal to appear and testify before a lawful congressional committee. It reversed the order of the district court that released Daugherty from custody.

I believe that is incorrect. Congress has subpoena power, which means they can compel witnesses to appear. What they can't do is compel the witness to incriminate himself. It appears that if Congress serves this Solyndra guy with a subpoena, he will show up and refuse to answer questions on the ground that his answers may incriminate him. Then, if he is immunized, the risk of incrimination goes away, the Fifth Amendment becomes irrelevant, and he has to testify or be held in contempt of Congress. If he lies under oath, he will get prosecuted, like that other famous immunized witness, Oliver North.

Or at least that's how I think it works.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler Can't the Senate Committee grant them immunity and compel their testimony?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst What will they do, send out the capitol police? The Congress is a political, not executive body. They don't have executive authority or power. Like the Supremes. Or as President Jackson observed, "Mr Marshall has made his law. Now let him enforce it." Marshall was a justice, not an executive. Jackson emasculated his ruling. Due to which, the Cherokee nation suffered mightily. Yay President Jackson.

As the original discussion involved Solyndra officials and the granting them immunity and thereby compelling their testimony the question you posed appeared to be about the power of Congress or the limitation of their power to accomplish that.

I posted an answer that clearly documents the power of the Congress to either compel or in the absence of, sanction individuals, by three specific methodologies.

With regard to your statement “The ruling circumscribed the president's claim of "executive privilege", and thus protect Liddy.” Is it your contention that the finding of guilty and the imposition of a suspended six-month sentence constitutes the protection of Liddy and the circumscription of executive power?

Perhaps there is some misunderstanding as to what MS Fowler stated; I don’t think he suggested that self incriminatory testimony could be compelled, but that the granting of full or partial immunity would in effect overcome any 5th amendment objection. This has been the case as I understand it, numerous individuals have been immunized and compelled to testify before Congress probably Col. Oliver North being one of the more famous or infamous.