11014474
Question 1:
Senator Hill makes three challenges to the charges against him. The first is that the committee could not conduct investigations into this subject matter. The committee lays out its purpose clearly; it is to investigate the accusations of sexual assault claims against Senator Hill. The congressional power of inquiry is enforced both in Kilbourn v. Thompson and McGrain v. Daugherty, as well as the power to punish witnesses who do not comply. However, the precedent sent forth Kilbourn states that inquiries must not invade areas reserved to other branches of government, must deal with subjects of which Congress could legislate, and must be within the scope of a subject of congressional interest. The purpose of the committee …show more content…
The committee very clearly states its purpose; it is to investigate if Senator Hill engaged in illegal activities. The committee did just that. However, this does not change the fact that there was no real legislative purpose to the committee, and as stated before, this is a requirement for congressional inquiries set forth in Kilbourn. Additionally from Kilbourn, these inquiries must not invade other areas of government and Congress is not a law-enforcing agency. The situation with Hill is similar to the situation in United States v. Nixon, however it was the judiciary (a district court) that subpoenaed the tapes, not a committee. So while the committee’s purpose was not vague, it violated the precedents in Kilbourn by not having a legislative purpose and invading areas reserved to other branches of …show more content…
According to the precedent set forth in Ex Parte McCardle, Congress has the right to remove jurisdiction from the Supreme Court due to the Exceptions Clause of Article III, Section 2. Congress made an act that took away jurisdiction of the Court to hear cases regarding Congress’s refusal to seat members. However, according to Marbury v. Madison, the judiciary has the power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional if they violate the Constitution. This act violates the Qualifications Clause of Article I, Section 5. The precedent set forth in Powell v. McCormack states that the Qualifications Clause is exhaustive and refusing to seat a member of Congress who is both duly elected and meets the qualification set forth in the Constitution is unconstitutional. The act removing the Court’s jurisdiction is therefore unconstitutional because it allows Congress to go unchecked in violating the Qualifications Clause of the Constitution. In Ex Parte McCardle, the removal of the Court’s jurisdiction was not for the purpose of allowing Congress to get away with an unconstitutional act. The Court therefore has jurisdiction to hear this case because that act of removal is null and void and according to Powell, Congress must seat Senator
Question 1:
Senator Hill makes three challenges to the charges against him. The first is that the committee could not conduct investigations into this subject matter. The committee lays out its purpose clearly; it is to investigate the accusations of sexual assault claims against Senator Hill. The congressional power of inquiry is enforced both in Kilbourn v. Thompson and McGrain v. Daugherty, as well as the power to punish witnesses who do not comply. However, the precedent sent forth Kilbourn states that inquiries must not invade areas reserved to other branches of government, must deal with subjects of which Congress could legislate, and must be within the scope of a subject of congressional interest. The purpose of the committee …show more content…
The committee very clearly states its purpose; it is to investigate if Senator Hill engaged in illegal activities. The committee did just that. However, this does not change the fact that there was no real legislative purpose to the committee, and as stated before, this is a requirement for congressional inquiries set forth in Kilbourn. Additionally from Kilbourn, these inquiries must not invade other areas of government and Congress is not a law-enforcing agency. The situation with Hill is similar to the situation in United States v. Nixon, however it was the judiciary (a district court) that subpoenaed the tapes, not a committee. So while the committee’s purpose was not vague, it violated the precedents in Kilbourn by not having a legislative purpose and invading areas reserved to other branches of …show more content…
According to the precedent set forth in Ex Parte McCardle, Congress has the right to remove jurisdiction from the Supreme Court due to the Exceptions Clause of Article III, Section 2. Congress made an act that took away jurisdiction of the Court to hear cases regarding Congress’s refusal to seat members. However, according to Marbury v. Madison, the judiciary has the power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional if they violate the Constitution. This act violates the Qualifications Clause of Article I, Section 5. The precedent set forth in Powell v. McCormack states that the Qualifications Clause is exhaustive and refusing to seat a member of Congress who is both duly elected and meets the qualification set forth in the Constitution is unconstitutional. The act removing the Court’s jurisdiction is therefore unconstitutional because it allows Congress to go unchecked in violating the Qualifications Clause of the Constitution. In Ex Parte McCardle, the removal of the Court’s jurisdiction was not for the purpose of allowing Congress to get away with an unconstitutional act. The Court therefore has jurisdiction to hear this case because that act of removal is null and void and according to Powell, Congress must seat Senator