Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The Supreme Court affirmed in Watkins v.United States (1957) that "[the] power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process" and that "[it] is unquestionably the duty of all citizens to cooperate with the Congress in its efforts to obtain the facts needed for intelligent legislative action.
Contempt of court is essentially seen as a form of disturbance that may impede the functioning of the court. The judge may impose fines and/or jail time upon any person committing contempt of court. The person is usually let out upon an agreement to fulfill the wishes of the court. [6] Civil contempt can involve acts of omission.
In general, each house of Congress is responsible for invoking censure against its own members; censure against other government officials is not common. Because censure is not specifically mentioned as the accepted form of reprimand, many censure actions against members of Congress may be listed officially as rebuke, condemnation, or denouncement.
The Bail Reform Act of 1966, one of the first significant pieces of the federal bail legislation, made "willfully fail[ing] to appear before any court or judicial officer as required" punishable by up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. [12] In 1984, Congress increased the sanctions for FTAs in federal court. [13]
In the Commonwealth of Australia, the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 defines contempt of parliament as: . Conduct (including the use of words)... [which] amounts, or is intended or likely to amount, to an improper interference with the free exercise by a House or committee of its authority or functions, or with the free performance by a member of the member's duties as a member.
The Supreme Court reached similar conclusions in a number of other cases. In Barenblatt v. United States, [32] the Court permitted Congress to punish contempt, when a person refused to answer questions while testifying under subpoena by the House Committee on Un-American Activities. The Court explained that although "Congress may not ...
The U.S. Congress has enacted section 1912 of Title 28 of the U.S.C. providing that in the U.S. Supreme Court and in the U.S. Courts of Appeals where litigation by the losing party has caused damage to the prevailing party, the court may impose a requirement that the losing party pay the prevailing party for those damages. [6]
The Supreme Court in Train v. City of New York (1975) [2] ruled that the impoundment power cannot be used to frustrate the will of Congress under such circumstances. The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 was passed as Congress felt that President Nixon was abusing his authority to impound the funding of programs he opposed.