In a bold legislative move, Representative Anna Paulina Luna orchestrates a fresh vote in the House. The goal is to potentially arrest Attorney General Merrick Garland using the inherent contempt powers of Congress.
Fox News reported that Rep. Anna Paulina Luna plans to force a vote on arresting Attorney General Garland this week following the DOJ's refusal of a criminal referral.
The procedure she champions, inherent contempt, is a self-enforcement right that allows the House to arrest and try individuals who defy its subpoenas. This approach has not been used since 1934, but the Supreme Court affirmed its legitimacy in Jurney v. MacCracken.
Rep. Luna's determination stems from AG Garland’s non-compliance in releasing certain audio recordings. House Republicans consider these recordings from an interview with President Joe Biden crucial for ongoing investigations.
Historical Powers of Congress Resurfaced
Previously, on June 12, a vote opted for criminal contempt, which merely referred Garland to his own Department of Justice for potential prosecution. The DOJ, under Garland's lead, probably chose not to pursue charges, citing executive privileges invoked by President Biden over the materials in question.
The implications of this decision have only fueled the resolution to use inherent contempt. Rep. Luna argues that this method ensures that Congress maintains its autonomy and operational might without being subdued by the executive branch.
Challenges and Opposition in Congress
Even with strong advocacy from Rep. Luna, the resolution’s success is not guaranteed. Some members of both parties are skeptical. One Republican, Rep. David Joyce of Ohio, has previously voiced concerns, fearing that such actions could excessively politicize the justice system.
Luna's proposal must be considered "privileged" by the House leadership within two legislative days, so its timely consideration is essential.
Rep. Luna articulated her reasoning in a statement addressing the gravity of Congress's capabilities.
The Department of Justice and the attorney general cannot be the ultimate deciders of whether or not a congressional subpoena is enforced. If Congress allows this to happen, we risk being subordinated to the attorney general and being completely neutered in our ability to legislate. Why would anyone from the executive branch comply with our demands for information if the enforcement of those demands relies on the actions of another department in its branch?
Broader Implications for Congressional Power
This renewed push by Rep. Luna indicates a significant moment for congressional authority as it ponders the limits and extent of its power. It also raises questions about the checks and balances between the branches of the U.S. government.
As this political saga unfolds, all eyes will be on how both sides navigate the contentious issue. Luna’s efforts underline a deep-seated concern among some lawmakers about other governmental branches' encroachment on legislative power.
The wider implications of this case could resonate well beyond this singular instance, potentially setting a precedent for how Congress handles similar situations moving forward.
Conclusion
Rep. Anna Paulina Luna's initiative to invoke inherent contempt against AG Merrick Garland underscores a significant test of the balance between congressional oversight and executive privilege. This reinvigorated attempt follows a prior unsuccessful vote and highlights a profound legislative challenge. As the House grapples with these deeply polarizing issues, the outcome could reshape the power dynamics in Washington for years to come.
