Contempt of court and constitutional issues

[Pleonast]

Continuing the discussion from Manhattan Prosecutors file criminal charges for Trump re Stormy Daniels case - ongoing discussion here:

@Northern_Piper

What the criminal courts don’t have is a power to call people in, put them under oath, and interrogate them. There is a historical precedent for that type of proceeding, called the “oath ex officio” or the great oath. It was used by the ecclesiastical courts in England, and by the Court of Star Chamber. The abuse of the oath ex officio was one of the contributing factors in the political crises that led to the English Civil Wars. The abuse of the oath led to the abolition of Star Chamber in 1640, and the abolition of the Court of High Commission (also called the Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes), originally in 1641, and then finally in the Bill of Rights, 1688, after James II revived it.

(Without further hijacking the original thread, I wanted to comment on this.)

This is one of my pet peeves about the Congress’ power to coerce testimony. I feel like it goes against Enlightenment ideals. A person can be compelled to come in person, including being forced to wear a costume. Then be compelled to listen to Congress talking, potentially berating or slandering them. And then be compelled to answer questions, unless there’s some colorable self incrimination, requiring you to incant magic words against the question.

Congress can’t impose criminal punishments, but the whole process reeks of royal prerogative over subjects.

[kayaker]

@Pleonast

including being forced to wear a costume.

?
Do you mean there’s a dress code?

[Pleonast]

@kayaker

@Pleonast

including being forced to wear a costume.

?
Do you mean there’s a dress code?

Yes.