Thus, “respect” for constitutionally guaranteed “rights of persons” ends whenever any provision of the Senate Rules of Procedure begins.

I still think though that the authority of the Senate to “punish for contempt” ought to be decided by an impartial tribunal competent to determine the question of guilt–certainly NOT by the Senate, the accusers, delegated the power only to make law.

“Punishment” is too serious a matter to be entrusted to any group other than the judiciary.

In WATKINS v. UNITED STATES, 354 U.S. 178 (1957): “Since World War II, the Congress has practically abandoned its original practice of utilizing the coercive sanction of contempt proceedings at the bar of the House. The sanction there imposed is imprisonment by the House until the recalcitrant witness agrees to testify or disclose the matters sought, provided that the incarceration does [354 U.S. 178, 207] not extend beyond adjournment. The Congress has instead invoked the aid of the federal judicial system in protecting itself against contumacious conduct. It has become customary to refer these matters to the United States Attorneys for prosecution under criminal law…”

“In fulfillment of their obligation under this statute, the courts must accord to the defendants every right which is guaranteed to defendants in all other criminal cases …”

GROPPI v. LESLIE, 404 U.S. 496 (1972), reiterates the WATKINS view:

“Legislatures are not constituted to conduct full-scale trials or quasi-judicial proceedings and we should not demand that they do so although they possess inherebt power to protect their own processes and existence by way of contempt proceedings. The Congress of the United States, for example, no longer undertakes to exercise its contempt powers in all cases but elects to delegate that function to federal courts (52 Stat 942, 2 U.S.C. Secs 192-194).”

Article VI, Section 21 of the constitution says: “The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of persons appearing in, or affected by, such inquiries shall be respected.”

And here’s Section 18 of the Senate’s Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation:

The Committee, by a vote of a majority of all its members, may punish for contempt any witness before it who disobeys any order of the Committee or refuses to be sworn or to testify or to answer a proper question by the Committee or any of its members, or testifying, testifies falsely or evasively. A contempt of the Committee shall be deemed a contempt of the Senate. Such witness may be ordered by the Committee to be detained in such place as it may designate under the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms until he agrees to produce the required documents, or to be sworn or to testify, or otherwise purge himself of that contempt.

Should advocy of a cause be selective? or Is the Senate also “above the law”?