Contempt of Congress yields mixed results

Contempt of Congress is one of those ephemeral things that floats somewhere between the Constitution and the rules of the House and Senate but is not mentioned in any of those foundational documents. Yet, as an “implied power,” it is one of the most essential tools parliamentary bodies have to carry out their lawmaking and oversight responsibilities.

While Great Britain can boast it is the only parliamentary democracy without a written constitution, the contempt of Parliament power has long been recognized there. That power was carried forward in the American colonial legislatures and then in the U.S. Congress.

It wasn’t until 1857 the contempt power became enshrined in one of our laws. That law reads, quite simply that any person summoned by either house as a witness to give testimony or produce papers and who refuses to do so shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 and imprisonment of up to 12 months.

Prior to that statutory enactment, Congress held its own trials to punish those who refused to cooperate with congressional inquiries. Congress even provided a musty jail cell in the bowels of the Capitol to imprison recalcitrant witnesses until they cooperated.

The most recent and dramatic example of a contempt case unfolded on Aug. 6, when the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, chaired by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), was holding hearings on the COVID-19 pandemic. Anthony Fauci, former chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden and prior to that director of........

© The Hill