The storm of secret subpoenas also seems to run against the thrust of recent Supreme Court decision, Trump v. Mazars, which addressed congressional subpoenas seeking personal information of the president. In sending the case back for further consideration, the court recognized the broad authority of Congress to issue subpoenas; however, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that congressional subpoenas must address a “valid legislative purpose” and be “related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of the Congress.”
Now that the FBI has concluded there’s no evidence of any form of coordinated insurrection and no evidence any member of Congress concluded with any of the yahoo’s that stormed the Capital it’s hard to see the SCOTUS allowing this.
I don’t have an opinion on this as I was referencing this statement from one of the links I provided:
The storm of secret subpoenas also seems to run against the thrust of recent Supreme Court decision, Trump v. Mazars, which addressed congressional subpoenas seeking personal information of the president. In sending the case back for further consideration, the court recognized the broad authority of Congress to issue subpoenas; however, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that congressional subpoenas must address a “valid legislative purpose” and be “related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of the Congress.”
It would seem that the power of supeona is not unlimited.
I understand - but you suggested that SCOTUS would rule against any Congressional subpoenas because of the FBI investigation. The FBI investigation has no influence over whether the subpoenas further a valid legislative purpose.
It is not “unlimited”, but it is very broad. Congress has extensive Constitutional powers to investigate - and that investigatory power is a valid legislative purpose.
Without investigative power, Congress has no power of oversight.
If you want to argue that Congress has no Constitutional power of oversight because it’s not mentioned specifically in the Constitution, then we’re getting into some pretty fundemental checks and balances issues.
If you want to argue that Congress has no Constitutional power of oversight because it’s not mentioned specifically in the Constitution, then we’re getting into some pretty fundemental checks and balances issues.
