I also wonder why half of the NY Times homepage is filled with this baseball hearing. :rolleyes:
That would come as news to the many people that have “taken the Fifth” in Congressional hearings over the years.
The Fifth Amendment applies everywhere. From Wiki.
This was the genesis of my question – perhaps I thought the furfural was bigger than it really is. But it’s atypical for the NYT to get so wrapped up in typical ‘news’ triviality.
I appreciate Ravenman’s post and am grateful for the insight. I don’t however, think that this is quite what Wilson had in mind. I’m sure (though citeless) that in just about any Congressional office, there is a stack of letters or petitions or what have you that raise issues that would serve as better uses of their time hearing-wise. Granted, there are probably a lot more that would be similarly useless, and none of the (self-declared) “useful” ones are glamorous, but I daresay there is enough government waste, and issues with real harm to go around.
Pulling back to GQ for a moment, if Congress decides it wants to investigate something, does it have to hang it on a Federal question, or can it just hold hearings/issue subpoenas at will?
I stand corrected, although I would have to say that SCOTUS clearly extended the right based on absolutely nothing.
(bolding mine)
The current proceedings would appear to fall under “topics of current interest”, which pushes my earlier assertion that…
…into IMHO/GD territory, so consider it retracted.
Actually now that I think about it, maybe they want to have a bigger headline than “Obama beats Hillary in 3 more states and has majority of delegate count.”
This is the real issue, and is part of why I have so much contempt for Americans qua political creatures. For example, Imad Mughniyah, who is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans and their allies, got whacked today. This is a BIG FUCKING DEAL. But what’s CNN’s top story? Roger Clemens. Mughniyeh is a sideline. The press gives Americans what they want, and what they want is bread and circus.
I couldn’t agree more.
Congress has the power to issue subpoenas under the Necessary and Proper clause, meaning that they can investigate anything within their “legitimate legislative sphere.” You can make a a jurisdictional challenge to a subpoena, but it’s extremely hard. “The scope of [Congress’s] power of inquiry . . . is as penetrating and far-reaching as the potential power to enact and appropriate under the Constitution.” Eastland v. United States Servicemen’s Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 503-506 (1975) (quoting Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109, 111-12 (1959)); However, Congress does not have the authority to investigate merely for the sake of personal aggrandizement or punishment. Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 197 (1957).
Second question first: chairmen of committees have plenary authority to call hearings within any matter that can be construed to be within their jurisdiction. The House Government Reform Committee is given by House rules unlimited authority to investigate any matter, even if it is within the jurisdiction of another committee: from House Rule X: “the Committee on Government Reform may at any time conduct investigations of any matter without regard to clause 1, 2, 3, or this clause conferring jurisdiction over the matter to another standing committee.”
There are checks on when subpoenas may be issued, and it varies greatly from committee to committee, but generally a subpoena issued by a congressional committee must have the approval of a majority of the members of the committee. Sometimes the chairman and ranking member can simply agree to issue a subpoena, sometimes a member of the minority party has to support a subpoena – the rules are all over the place.
On the first question, like I said, Wilson was talking primarily about the issue of oversight of government operations, but many would argue that the same principle of the informing function of Congress applies to issues that are simply in the news. But in any case, it is hard to come up with situations in which there is a complete absence of a Federal interest in a particular area, with but a few exceptions I’ll mention later. Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce, which is a very broad authority in terms of law, and even broader in terms of fact-finding. Moreover, it is not unreasonable to expect a hearing to touch upon the question of whether Congress does or does not have authority to legislate in certain gray areas.
But don’t get too hung up on Wilson’s quote. It doesn’t define the limits of the congressional power to investigate. In fact, the Constitution doesn’t confer on Congress any power of investigation. It is simply an assumed power based upon the history of the country, and even the history of the British Parliament. Interesting article. That link has a discussion of Supreme Court cases which discuss the Congressional power to investigate, but one good quote is from Chief Justice Earl Warren: "The power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process. That power is broad. It encompasses inquiries concerning the administration of existing laws as well as proposed or possibly needed statutes. It includes surveys of defects in our social, economic or political system for the purpose of enabling the Congress to remedy them. It comprehends probes into departments of the Federal Government to expose corruption, inefficiency or waste.”
The only real limits established by the courts on the scope of Congressional investigations are that they must not be construed to have the power to invade the private affairs of a person, nor be matters that must be left to the courts, and must somehow relate to a legislative function. But when you really think about it, those are really, really low hurdles to clear.
And finally, let’s remember that Congress conducts dozens of hearings each day – there were 45 hearings scheduled for the House and Senate today. And in terms of taxpayer dollars, the only “cost” of a hearing is how much electricity it takes to run the lights, the paper used to print out the questions for congressmen to read, and maybe sometimes a witness is paid to fly in. Congressmen and staff are paid whether they’re in a hearing or not, the media covers the hearing at no cost to the taxpayer, and really there isn’t much more to it than that. Hearings may be a waste of time, depending on your view, but it is hard to imagine that they are a waste of money, since the cost is really de minimis.
By what convoluted reasoning do you reach this conclusion?
The Fifth Amendment bars the United States Government (any branch of it) from compelling you to testify against yourself. Period.
Sorry, guilty of piling on. But the Fifth Amendment applies directly, not because of some extension by the Supreme Court.
At face value, the text of the Amendment quite clearly grants the right not to incriminate oneself only in criminal proceedings.
In order for said right to apply elsewhere, outside context must be applied.
I heard a lawyer on the radio today say that he’d never let a client even go before congress to put himself in such a position, unless his client was granted immunity. So, does one have the choice of responding to a subpoena? Someone above suggested one might be cited with contempt of congress for avoiding testifying, but do congressional subpoenas have the actual power of law?
It doesn’t say “criminal proceedings,” though; it says “criminal case.”
“No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”
Courts have ruled that includes compelled testimony about anything regarding a criminal case, even a potential criminal case unknown to the authorities. The privilege concerns the subject matter of the questions being asked, not the nature of the proceeding.
“The privilege is not ordinarily dependent upon the nature of the proceeding in which the testimony is sought or is to be used. It applies alike to civil and criminal proceedings, wherever the answer might tend to subject to criminal responsibility him who gives it.” McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34 (1924).
"The meaning of the constitutional provision is not merely that a person shall not be compelled to be a witness against himself in a criminal prosecution against himself, but its object is to insure that a person shall not be compelled, when acting as a witness in any investigation, to give testimony which may tend to show that he himself has committed a crime.
The ruling in People v. Kelly, 24 N.Y. 74, that the words “criminal case” mean only a criminal prosecution against the witness himself, disapproved…It is broadly contended on the part of the appellee that a witness is not entitled to plead the privilege of silence except in a criminal case against himself; but such is not the language of the Constitution. Its provision is that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. This provision must have a broad construction in favor of the right which it was intended to secure…The reason given by Counselman for his refusal to answer the questions was that his answers might tend to criminate him, and showed that his apprehension was that, if he answered the questions truly and fully (as he was bound to do if he should answer them at all), the answers might show that he had committed a crime against the Interstate Commerce Act, for which he might be prosecuted. His answers, therefore, would be testimony against himself, and he would be compelled to give them in a criminal case. It is impossible that the meaning of the constitutional provision can only be that a person shall not be compelled to be a witness against himself in a criminal prosecution against himself. It would doubtless cover such cases; but it is not limited to them. The object was to insure that a person should not be compelled, when acting as a witness in any investigation, to give testimony which might tend to show that he himself had committed a crime. The privilege is limited to criminal matters, but it is as broad as the mischief against which it seeks to guard." Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547 (1892).
We’re talking about two different things. That act means that the league is not to be treated as a trust by its member clubs. There is a different exemption that baseball has, that allows Major League baseball to operate as a monopoly (though I guess at the time, it was really a duopoly, as I don’t think there was a unified MLB entity until Landis was hired as commissioner), that does not apply to football.
Right…
I don’t see where you’re going with that, though. The question asked in the OP was does football have an antitrust exemption, and the answer is yes; it’s just more limited than what baseball enjoys.
Okay, you lost me there. Are you saying that if the NCAA negotiated TV packages, then it would be a trust, but if another organization, say, The Big East Conference negotiated a TV package, then it would NOT be a trust?
What is the difference?
And also, how is the local little league not subject to federal anti-trust regulations? They have a set number of teams, rules for selecting players, playing games, they make money at the gate, etc. Isn’t that just MLB only on a vastly smaller scale?
I think you’ve shown Really Not All That Bright was entirely correct.
None of what you mention is in the 5th amendment. It’s evident that outside context is being applied, per your numerous and lengthy cites.
Not really. Ratings skyrocket when Barry Bonds and other hormone pumped meat hammers start slamming balls into outer space. They do have an interest in not getting caught, though.