Why would you assume that? I've scanned Article I, did not see any mention of Congress' ability to hold hearings or to compel people to testify at them. They're supposed to craft legislation, and police their own ranks, and produce a budget. No other powers, and definitely no subpoena powers. The concept of the subpoena is from English Common Law isn't it? So it's been adopted by our Judiciary, but it seems like congress was usurping Judiciary powers by holding "Congressional hearings" and by issuing subpoenas. There is no delineated power for Congress to enact any direct orders or controls over ordinary people. They can craft rules for Congresspeople and enforce them all they like, but in no way is there a delineated Constitutional power of Congress to compel any person to do anything, in particular to testify under oath. They can craft laws dictating general permissible behavior, but they can't make any laws that single out any person or organization, those are illegal and called "Bills of Attainder."
So no, of course it's not "rhetorical," if you think you have information proving me wrong then spill it of STFU about it. Stop pretending you know something and actually prove that you know something I don;t. If you prove me wrong, I'll learn and change my mind, that's how it's supposed to work. What you appear to be doing is acting as if what I said was somehow obviously incorrect, and you don't even need to point out where. That's how liberals "argue," by acting as if someone is crazy for even asking the question.
Dude, lighten the fuck up. I made the assumption that you knew there was nowhere in the Constitution that allowed for Congressional hearings. A rhetorical question, in this case, being used to make the point (by you) that no such power existed and that everyone should know that.
I've been far too "light" in the past, so no I will not "lighten the fuck up," I will go dark and hard on anything I see as pushback against unveiling the true nature of this society.
And maybe you've been dealing with ironic hipsters too often lately, with your assumption that my actual curiosity about how Congress managed to obtain and retain legal powers they apparently pulled from their asses and were never questioned on was me trying to guide people to "rightthink" through fake questions and pretend disengenuousness, because if I believe something I say I believe that thing, and if I don't know something I ask if anyone else knows who could tell me.
So far, to the best of my ability, I have found no actual basis for Congress possessing any powers to subpoena a person to "testify" at a "hearing," and even less power to penalize people for "Contempt of Congress," So they must have granted themselves these powers. And the Judiciary was complicit, in .
So you're going to prove your point by pushing back at people who agree with you? OK then. Enjoy.
(post is archived)