Renee Parsons

While the recent House Floor debates mostly focused on adoption of the SAVE Act (221 – 198) which required all Federal voters to be American citizens, the debate on Attorney General Merrick Garland’s refusal to abide by two legally issued subpoenas was at least of more critical Constitutional importance.  

The Garland subpoena (HR 1344) was to obtain an unredacted audio of Special Counsel Robert Hur’s interviews related to Joe Biden’s ‘willful mishandling of classified documents.’     

As the debate unfolded, it became quickly apparent that GOP House Members were in a fierce Constitutional defense of the Federal government’s historic checks and balances.  Those checks and balances depend on three separate branches of government, established by the US Constitution (Judicial, Legislative and Executive), separate and distinct from each other, to assure that no one branch could become too powerful. 

That idea should come as no surprise to any American, least of all any Member of Congress the debate that occurred on the House floor contradicted the historic precedent in order to protect a cognitively impaired President. 

The Resolution was sponsored by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (Fla.) also Floor Manager, who explained the ‘inherent contempt” citation was first used in 1795 and upheld by the Supreme Court in 1821.  She was followed by Rep. Derek Van Orden (Wisc.) who spelled it out:  “the US is a Republic that is designed specifically and our duties articulated in the US Constitution – so when we are speaking to the Executive Branch as a co equal, we are not sending requests.  A subpoena is not an ‘ask,’ it is a task; and for the Attorney General of the US to completely ignore the Congress is unlawful and it cannot be tolerated.” 

Van Order further suggested “This should be a bi partisan bill, as my Democratic colleagues have also been emasculated by the Attorney General” and that House Members need to “make sure we are collectively respected members of Congress as articulated in the Constitution.”

While Rep. Rich Fitzgerald (Ga.) added “..it is important to empower the legislative branch to do its duty; to have representation in its most basic way;…a most epic debate exposing a President, how he thinks, what his mental capacity is and his ability to lead this great nation forward in the next four years.  This is about the survival of our nation, the representation of ideas, and about the health of the most powerful person in the world.”

No doubt feeling threatened by the GOP lucid arguments, Rep. Jim McGovern, (Mass.) ranking member of the Rules Committee, declared that the Contempt Resolution was ‘a stupid resolution, Republican leadership knows this is a stupid resolution, their own members know this is a stupid resolution but they are beholden to the craziest MAGA Members in their conference. And so this is what we get, stupid Resolutions on the Floor because they are too chicken to stand up to extremism in their own party. This is about the Republicans weaponizing the Government to go after their political opponents. And it is sick, it is sick.”  

McGovern then listed Republicans who he claimed had refused to honor Congressional subpoenas, although he failed to identify those subpoenas as coming from the unconstitutional J6 Committee.  He continued “And now they have the nerve to come down here and lecture anyone about the Rule of Law.  Get Lost. Get Out of here with this nonsense. Our side respects the Rule of Law while the other side uses it as a phony talking point.”  

Upon which the Chair gaveled McGovern ‘will the Gentlemen suspend.’ Rep. Morgan Griffth (Va.) stood and requested the “words be taken down.” The Chair directed the Clerk to report the words. At which point, House audio went silent for almost half an hour when the following appeared on screen:

“WORDS TAKEN DOWN – During the course of debate, exception was taken to certain words used and a demand was made to have the words taken down. Mr. McGovern asked unanimous consent to withdraw the words. Without objection, the words were withdrawn.”

***

Sparked by Montequieu’s phrase ‘separation of powers,’ American author of the Constitution, James Madison spelled it out in the Federalist Papers in 1788  “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elected, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

At issue was the GOP asserting that AG Garland was in contempt of Congress for refusing to provide the audio of an investigation that he initiated with Special Counsel Robert Hur.   The House issued a subpoena to Garland on February 27, 2024 and asserted that Garland be fined $10,000 a day until he complies with the subpoena. 

The purpose of Hur’s criminal investigation was to determine if there was a “willful mishandling of classified documents” conducted by Biden prior to assuming the Presidency in 2020.   two days of interviews in October, 2023.  While the transcription of the two day Biden interview was released for public, the document does not reveal the true, verbatim conversation of the entire investigation which is the concern of the GOP House Members.   

Hur’s description of Biden as a “well meaning elderly man with a poor memory” does not adequately or specifically address why Hur ultimately refused to charge Biden or exactly the level of the President’s deterioration.  

Before any debate could even begin Rep. Katherine Clark, Minority Whip complained about all the time being taken to defend the Constitution, immediately offered a  Motion to Table which failed on a 207 – 209  vote.  There were a total of Seventeen  House Members Not Voting including seven Republicans while four Republicans voted with the Democrats in favor of the Motion.   They were Reps. Duarte (Calif), Joyce (Ohio), McClintock (Calif.) and Chair of the Intel Committee, Mike Turner (Ohio).

Immediately after, Clark offered a Motion to Refer which would have referred the Motion to the Rules Committee.  That Motion failed on a vote of 211 – 207 with fifteen Members Not Voting including five Republicans with the same four Republican Members voting with the Democrats in favor of the Motion.  

The debate on Luna’s Resolution continued into the next day with the final vote of 204 – 210 opposed to adoption of the Contempt citation.  There were nineteen House Members Not Voting with eleven Republicans while the same four Republicans continued to vote with the Democrats against the Contempt Resolution.