What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Sheilbh]

My point is Congress have the power to issues a subpoena - great, they can compel the production of all sorts of information.

The DOJ will, I imagine typically, enforce those subpoenas I imagine on normal people/institutions.

If Congress issues a subpoena against a bit of the executive branch and the executive branch says no, then Congress can go to the DOJ to get the subpoena enforced. From my understanding of this case (which is almost nil - this is just my thoughts from what I've seen) if the DOJ refuses, which would probably be because it's politically sensitive, Congress can't enforce the subpoena or compel the DOJ to enforce it because that's a political matter. So the subpoena power is, effectively, meaningless against the executive.

The executive can mark its own homework and Congress has this incredibly swanky power to issue subpoenas, but enforcing them against the executive is at the executive's discretion. So it's like having the world's best contract, but you've got no remedy for breach.

[Admiral Yi]

Like I said, that is my understanding.  Congress has zero independent enforcement power.  Much like the court, if you think about it.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah - but courts normally have powers to compel enforcement and in Scots law for certains types of action if the executive refuses to act in response to a legal order, the court can step in and make the order. Apparently Congress doesn't.

It's interesting because in the UK Parliamentary Select Committees don't have subpoena power and Congress is always cited as an example of a more powerful investigatory legislature.

[crazy canuck]

Like I said, that is my understanding.  Congress has zero independent enforcement power.  Much like the court, if you think about it.

Courts have the power of sending people to jail if they are in contempt of a court order

[Eddie Teach]

*gaol

[dps]

My point is Congress have the power to issues a subpoena - great, they can compel the production of all sorts of information.

The DOJ will, I imagine typically, enforce those subpoenas I imagine on normal people/institutions.

If Congress issues a subpoena against a bit of the executive branch and the executive branch says no, then Congress can go to the DOJ to get the subpoena enforced. From my understanding of this case (which is almost nil - this is just my thoughts from what I've seen) if the DOJ refuses, which would probably be because it's politically sensitive, Congress can't enforce the subpoena or compel the DOJ to enforce it because that's a political matter. So the subpoena power is, effectively, meaningless against the executive.

The executive can mark its own homework and Congress has this incredibly swanky power to issue subpoenas, but enforcing them against the executive is at the executive's discretion. So it's like having the world's best contract, but you've got no remedy for breach.

I'm not positive, but I think that Congressional subpoenas are served by the Capitol Police, not anyone in the DoJ.  I do know for a fact that the Capitol Police are not part of the Executive Branch, and answer to Congress, not the DoJ.

EDIT:  Note that serving a subpoena isn't the same as enforcing it.

[grumbler]

Like I said, that is my understanding.  Congress has zero independent enforcement power.  Much like the court, if you think about it.

Courts have the power of sending people to jail if they are in contempt of a court order

Courts have the power to order the executive to take people to jail.  If the executive refuses, what power does the court have to enforce its ruling?

[crazy canuck]

Like I said, that is my understanding.  Congress has zero independent enforcement power.  Much like the court, if you think about it.

Courts have the power of sending people to jail if they are in contempt of a court order

Courts have the power to order the executive to take people to jail.  If the executive refuses, what power does the court have to enforce its ruling?

Here the police are not part of the executive of government and our courts are not so limited.  I didn't realize that was the case in the US. 

[Barrister]

Here the police are not part of the executive of government and our courts are not so limited.  I didn't realize that was the case in the US.

Our police are as much apart of the executive as are US police forces, which is to say kind-of sort-of.

What if our next PM appoints a Commissioner of the RCMP who is determined to obey the will of the PM, up to and including ignoring court orders.  What enforcement power is left to the courts in that case?

[crazy canuck]

Here the police are not part of the executive of government and our courts are not so limited.  I didn't realize that was the case in the US.

Our police are as much apart of the executive as are US police forces, which is to say kind-of sort-of.

What if our next PM appoints a Commissioner of the RCMP who is determined to obey the will of the PM, up to and including ignoring court orders.  What enforcement power is left to the courts in that case?

Do you have an example of that?  The position of the Federal government in the current situation is that they cannot so direct the RCMP.

During an emergency meeting debate at the House of Commons Tuesday evening, Crown-Indigenous Relations Minister Carolyn Bennett also responded to government criticism of the unrest by saying the Government of Canada "cannot direct the RCMP."

"It is very important to remember that the government does not have the authority to dictate the processes to the RCMP," said Bennett.

https://globalnews.ca/news/6568849/government-cannot-direct-rcmp/

The Conservatives have put forward a problematic interpretation of the Act

But Public Safety Critic Glen Motz disagreed. He referred to the RCMP Act, which states the minister of public safety has the authority to direct the RCMP, as long as their requests did not interfere with "lawful duties" or have any interference in the "law enforcement function."

They argue that it is a lawful duty to enforce a court order.  I think they are wrong about the latitude the Federal Government has to order the RCMP to take action.  I was involved in a two year inquiry about that very issue- The APEC inquiry - I suggest you and other Conservatives read the comprehensive report Ted Hughes produced.  All those lessons seem to be lost to the mists of time.  I would definitely not wish to live in a nation where the RCMP are at the beck and call of the PM.

But all that is quite different from what Grumbler suggests.  The Court does not need to ask the executive to enforce its orders. The police should do so with or without the executives consent.  Even the Conservatives would I think agree with that.

Edit: and frankly as I re-read Grumbler's post, I think we might be talking at cross purposes here.

[The Minsky Moment]

My understanding is the case is about the power of Congress to petition the court to compel the DOJ to execute a subpoena.  And they said no, you can't bring this to the court into it because it's a political matter.

If the court had ruled that Congress can't issue subpeonas, that would have been a huge fucking deal.

No this case is about Congress' inherent subpoena power.  Congress doesn't need DOJ to do anything.  They have the authority to issue subpoenas on their own.  There is no dispute on that point.

This case is about whether the courts will agree to enforce a congressional subpoena.  Enforcing subpoenas is what courts do and there is ample precedent for court enforcement of Congressional subpoenas.

This ruling held that the courts won't enforce Congressional subpoenas directed to executive branch officials. There is zero precedent for such a decision.  The court's ruling relies on a mid-1990s Supreme Court case called Raines where a few individual members of Congress sued over the line item veto.  The Court in Raines ruled that a few individual members didn't have the authority to act for House or Senate - both Houses opposed the suit. But in this case, the court conceded that the subpoena was issued with full authority of the House.  They just refused to enforce.

It's true that cases of judicial enforcement of Congressional subpoenas to executive branch officials are historically rare.  That isn't because of any question over authority or standing - quite the contrary.  It's because few other Presidents have had the chutzpah to simply stonewall and blow off subpoenas - they almost always negotiate and reach a deal to avoid a judicial clash.

There are some examples however from the Nixon era including a very famous one from this same court - the DC Circuit - enforcing the subpoena from the Senate Select Committee to get the John Dean tapes.  Even though this decision should be binding on this 3 judge panel, the majority opinion essentially cabins it as a "mid-1970s innovation"(!) and refuses to follow iy.

[The Minsky Moment]

Remember back in the Obama administration when various GOP controlled committees investigated Fast and Furious and, IIRC, Benghazi?  They issued a bunch of subpoenas and Holder just ignored them.

That is not accurate.

Holder did  what a respondent is supposed to do.  He responded with written objections to the subpoena raising executive privilege, he produced some documents in response, and then asserted privilege as to the rest.

Then Committee sued to get the documents withheld on privilege and Holder raised the same argument Cippilone made in this case - that the courts didn't have the authority to enforce.  The Court *rejected* the argument:

The fact that this case arises out of a dispute between two branches of government does not make it non-justiciable; Supreme Court precedent establishes that the third branch has an equally fundamental role to play, and that judges not only may, but sometimes must, exercise their responsibility to interpret the Constitution and determine whether another branch has exceeded its power. In the Court's view, endorsing the proposition that the executive may assert an unreviewable right to withhold materials from the legislature would offend the Constitution more than undertaking to resolve the specific dispute that has been presented here. After all, the Constitution contemplates not only a separation, but a balance, of powers.

So the case went on and the judge spent the next couple years reviewing and ruling on executive privilege claims - exactly that kind of thing courts normally do.

This is also what the courts did in Nixon, it's what they did in the Bush era when the Judiciary Committee issued subpoenas to Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolten.  Same attempted defense, same ruling - the courts have standing to enforce.

45 years of consistent precedent, undone.

[Admiral Yi]

I stand corrected.

[The Minsky Moment]

Fun fact - the judge who dissed Holder's defense was none other than Amy Berman Jackson - the same judge on the Roger Stone case.

[viper37]

They argue that it is a lawful duty to enforce a court order.  I think they are wrong about the latitude the Federal Government has to order the RCMP to take action.  I was involved in a two year inquiry about that very issue- The APEC inquiry - I suggest you and other Conservatives read the comprehensive report Ted Hughes produced.  All those lessons seem to be lost to the mists of time.  I would definitely not wish to live in a nation where the RCMP are at the beck and call of the PM.

Unless you are way, way younger than me, you did, at some point of your life.  At the very least, before CSIS became a seperate branch from the RCMP.

See Keable and Mcdonald's commissions.  Oh, and Supreme court ruled that a provincial commission did not have authority to investigate the administration of an independant agency of the Federal government.  So we had the Federal McDonald Commission

English Canadians were so outraged of living in such a country that they re-voted the same govt in office a few years later.  And again.  And again.  And again.

But the Conservatives are right on this, though.  RCMP can still be ordered to do their job by the PMO.  Theoritically, if someone compliant enough was named, he could accept a request to not investigate something.  It's not like we haven't heard of such attemps recently...