# The Case of Congress vs President **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 22, 2007, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-of-congress-vs-president/396984 "2007-03-22T03:36:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![flurb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/51bf81/32.png) [@flurb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flurb)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2007, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-of-congress-vs-president/396984/1 "2007-03-22T03:36:23Z")
I keep hearing that the coming clash between the Administration and Congress over the subpoenas of Rove and Meirs will end up in the courts. But I’m a little confused as to how and by whom an action would be brought against the Administration. Congress would need a US Attorney to agree to prosecute, right? The same US Attorneys that are appointed by the Administration? Or would Congress pass a bill to charge the Administration with contempt? Could the President veto it? ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2007, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-of-congress-vs-president/396984/2 "2007-03-22T03:48:29Z")
Some of your questions are discussed in this thread: > **[Can the WH invoke "executive privilege" to stop Rove & Miers from...](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=413242)** > > Followup on this thread. Topic self-explanatory. Answer, perhaps, imponderable. The Supreme Court has never rejected, nor unambiguously endorsed, the doctrine of executive privilege, still less has it ever delineated its boundaries and legitimate... ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2007, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-of-congress-vs-president/396984/3 "2007-03-22T03:48:30Z")
The point of the U.S. Department of Justice is that it is supposed to be above politics. Same with the various US Attorneys. In reality there will be plenty of political pressure on the US Attorney for the District of Columbia, [Jeffery A. Taylor](http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/dc/). I don’t envy the position he’ll be in. Though the news shows have indicated that some solution will be worked out before it goes to court, so we’ll see. That seems to be the way it usually plays out in this dangerous game of chicken. > **[Contempt of Congress](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress)** > > Contempt of Congress is the misdemeanor act of obstructing the work of the United States Congress or one of its committees. Historically, the bribery of a U.S. senator or U.S. representative was considered contempt of Congress. In modern times, contempt of Congress has generally applied to the refusal to comply with a subpoena issued by a congressional committee or subcommittee—usually seeking to compel either testimony or the production of requested documents. In the late 1790s, declaring cont... > [@](#): > > For example, Henry Kissinger, James Watt, and Janet Reno have all been cited by Congress for contempt, though in all these cases the Congress and the executive branch subsequently reached an agreement on the delivery of documents before the matter reached a grand jury. In cases involving delivery of documents, Congress currently seems to view contempt of Congress as a tool to reach an agreement with the executive branch, rather than as a law to punish the contemptuous. In any case, Congress doesn’t do this with a bill, so no veto is possible. [http://www.c-span.org/questions/weekly9.htm](http://www.c-span.org/questions/weekly9.htm) > [@](#): > > Contempt of Congress is initiated by a resolution reported from the affected congressional committee which can cite any individual for contempt. The resolution must then be adopted by the House or Senate. If the relevant chamber adopts the contempt resolution recommended by one of its committees, the matter is referred to a U.S. Attorney for prosecution. The U.S. Attorney may call in a grand jury to decide whether or not to indict and prosecute. If prosecuted by the courts and found guilty of contempt, the punishment is presently set at up to one year in prison and/or up to $1,000 in fines. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2007, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-of-congress-vs-president/396984/4 "2007-03-22T03:50:04Z")
Every time I read one of today’s apocalyptic ‘constitutional crisis’ headlines, or saw some breathless bubblehead presaging doom over the news channels, I thought of [this little song](http://www.weebls-stuff.com/toons/ultimate+showdown/). We worked it all out with Nixon, Reagan and Clinton. It’ll get dealt with this time as well.