What is the Democrats' power to investigate in Congress?

[BurtWorm]

I know they can set up investigations, as John Conyers did with respect to the Ohio vote. Do they have subpoena power in those special committees? Does anyone know?

[BurtWorm]

1. kick

because I'm still hoping someone knows the answer.

[Toots]

2. They have none

They can make a public statement and write letters making demands but actual power to launch an investigation is not theirs. Their only hope is public pressure and we all know how shameless Republicans are so no amopunt of publicity will shame them into doing what is right.

[BurtWorm]

3. That's what I was afraid of.

That means that their hearings can only look like partisan stunts. That's fucked up, because everything this Congress does is a freakin' partisan stunt!

[StJohnsVI]

4. Very little, if any. It's pretty much a one party system

right now. Republicans control the House, Senate and White House. They're trying to make us Dems irrelevant and we can't let that happen.

[KharmaTrain]

5. You Saw It Last Monday...If Anyone Knew About It

Senators Dorgan, Reid and Congressman Waxman held hearings about the incredible amount of profiteering that was going on in Iraq. There was a small thread here on DU by the crazy few of us (or was it bored) who were tuned in. No Repugnicans showed...even though they were invited...and this was some of the Democrat's best guns...along with a great panel that included people whose testimony jeopardized their standing in the corporate world.

I wish this apathy would end...and people here and Democrats overall get serious in doing some heavy local and state party building to win House Seats...the root cause of a lot of our troubles. Taking the House, more than the Senate (and I want BOTH in 2006), opens up a ton of committee and sub committee power that now lays in Tom DeLay's hands.

The other avenue is to "Paula Jones" these bastards. Fund a legal organization that will launch civil suits against individuals or corporations...with the main purpose of forcing people involved in these scandals to testify under oath and in front of a jury. It also gives us "discovery" powers as well. I'd gladly donate to such a fund.

[BurtWorm]

6. Yes. It's sick and sad and it should motivate Dems to take back at least

one chamber in 2006. It has to be done.

[KharmaTrain]

7. We Need A "Contract With America"...

No, I'm not advocating the "Contract On America", but the technique the GOOP used in '94 that turned Democratic majorites in both houses into minorities and when Bill Clinton's problems really began.

It was the Democratic House that ran the show with Nixon's Impeachment and led the way again Raygunomics and in Iran-Contra. We need to start promoting a "Class of '06" and a theme that's short, simple and very relateable. My first suggestion would be "Return Sanity".

I hope we have as many of the eager faces and feet I saw last year...and to energize this force to help in Congressional campaigns...especially in purple, fringe blue and red areas, where seats can be taken and lost.

Cheers!

[paineinthearse]

8. Squat

They can invite people but do not have subpoena power.

Why don't they just friggin' sue in civil court?

[H2O Man]

9. Actually they do.

Congress has subpoena power. As all good students of Watergate know, congress has that power, but the Constitution does not say anything that implies the executive branch has to respond to such subpoena. It is clear that congress can subpoena anyone/anything not under the control of the executive branch. The poster who wrote that congress can only "invite" was close: congress generally invites executive branch officials.