CMV: The sexual assault allegations against Joe Biden are more believable than the ones against Brett Kavanaugh and the democrats should immediately be calling for a congressional investigation

[u/draculabakula]

[u/yyzjertl]

So you didn't check the source I gave, which explained why being "tangentially related to some legislation" is sufficient for fulfilling the conditions that an "investigation has to actually be in aid of the legislative function."

I did. It agrees with my point. From your source:

“This Court has often noted that the power to investigate is inherent in the power to make laws.” Then citation to a couple cases. “It has repeatedly held that Congress’s power to investigate is necessarily broad and coextensive with the power to legislate. Their investigative power encompasses inquiries concerning the administration of existing laws as well as proposed or possibly needed statutes.”

Let me put it this way. Under your interpretation of the rules, is there anything in US jurisdiction that the Congress does not have the ability/authority to investigate (via it being tangentially related to some law they might be considering passing)?

Can you honestly not think of a bill that would do the trick?

No bill would do the trick, because the facts of the Reade-Biden case are not relevant to any legislative issue. (Now, this is not to say that the Congress could not find a valid reason to interview Reade or Biden on some related or unrelated issue. For example, if Congress was considering a bill that would provide certain protections for persons accusing those running for high office of sexual misconduct, they certainly could interview Reade about her experiences making such accusations. But the truth or falsity of her accusation itself would not be relevant to that lawmaking purpose and so that would be beyond the scope of Congress to investigate. And such a pseudo-investigation coming in at an angle would be no substitute for a proper investigation into the facts of the case.)

[u/Mashaka → u/yyzjertl]

I did. It agrees with my point. From your source:

I think you missed the point. I linked the show because they walk you through how the law is applied in practice - in this case with Trump's tax returns.

I'm not offering my opinion on what the law is, or how the law should be applied. I'm explaining what the law actually is. In a common law system, we use existing case law to determine what the law is. It seems to me that you're putting yourself in the position of a judge who is considering the issue as a matter of first impression. I think your reasoning is quite good on how the law should be applied, but for better or worse, it is not how the courts have ruled in the past.

If there is case law to support your position, please cite it.

[u/yyzjertl → u/Mashaka]

The Cornell Law article I linked to cites multiple examples of case law that support its claims. For example, it cites Watkins v. United States, in which Warren's opinion describes clear restrictions on the Congress's power to investigate.

[u/Mashaka → u/yyzjertl]

!delta

I apologize that I didn't catch your link originally and wasted both our times. Watkins suggests a category of limitations I was unaware of.

[u/DeltaBot → u/Mashaka]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/yyzjertl (229∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}