A federal grand jury indicted former Major League Baseball pitcher Roger Clemens today for lying about his alleged personal use of anabolic steroids, human growth hormone, and vitamin B12. In addition to perjury and false statements charges, the grand jury also accused Clemens of “obstruction of Congress.” What does that mean? Did he stand in front of Congress and prevent it from legislating? Did he steal Nancy Pelosi’s gavel?
Basically, it means he’s accused of making false statements while testifying at a congressional committee hearing. The indictment explains,
In or about March 2005, the Committee held a hearing in Washington, DC, titled “Restoring Faith in America’s Pastime: Evaluating Major League Baseball’s Efforts to Eradicate Steroid Use.” One purpose of this hearing was to investigate the use of [performance-enhancing drugs] in professional baseball as part of Congress’s authority to regulate commerce and evaluate the nation’s drug laws.
Now Clemens did not testify at this hearing, mind you. He appeared — voluntarily and without subpoena, according to the indictment — before Congress at a follow-up hearing in 2008 to address allegations that he had used various substances without the government’s consent. The indictment justifies this hearing as follows:
[The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform] possessed the authority to investigate, among other matters, the use and distribution of controlled substances and other drugs, including anabolic steroids and HGH, in MLB and elsewhere. The Committee’s investigation was conducted pursuant to its authority, consistent with applicable rules of the House. Based on its investigation, the House had authority to pass legislation protecting public health, including legislation governing the use and distribution of controlled substances and other drugs. The House also had the authority to pass legislation governing the regulation of MLB in interstate and foreign commerce, including legislation protecting the integrity of the game of MLB.
By allegedly lying to the committee about his personal use of certain substances, the indictment argues that Clemens “did corruptly endeavor to influence, obstruct, and impede the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which an investigation was being had by a Committee of the United States House of Representatives.”
The basic idea here is that we should consider it a crime — a felony, no less — for an individual to prevent a congressional committee from discovering the truth about a subject, whether or not the subject is really a proper subject of congressional authority. Although akin to the “obstruction of justice” charge, the “obstruction of Congress” charge really elevates the people’s elected representatives above the people themselves, as they are slaves to the mob-driven whims of the Congress and its tyrannical committee chairs.
Let’s take this one step at a time, starting with the shifting justifications for the congressional hearings. Although the indictment describes the 2005 hearing as pursuant to Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce, the title of the hearing suggests otherwise. “Restoring Faith in America’s Pastime” has nothing to do with commerce; “faith” is a religious belief. No matter how broadly you read the commerce clause, it does not extend to individual’s faith or belief in a game.
Now, obviously, these hearings were about drugs, not faith. Congress has the right to regulate drugs, ergo it can hold hearings about their use. Except for the fact that absolutely nothing in the Constitution allows Congress to ban individuals from possessing substances, be they steroids or cheese, that makes total sense. Furthermore, while the indictment speaks of Congress’s “authority to pass legislation protecting public health,” the Constitution makes no such provision. To the contrary, “public health” regulation is a police power reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment. And unless it’s one of those “privileges and immunities” covered by the 14th Amendment, Congress also has no authority to “protect the integrity of the game” of baseball.
But let’s side aside Congress’s lack of jurisdiction for a moment. Assuming Congress can regulate and ban steroids and other substances — including vitamins — that still does not establish a causal link between Clemens’s testimony and the attainment of any congressional objective. Remember, we’re not talking about perjury here. Clemens was separately charged with that. This charge is “obstruction of Congress.” People lie to Congress every day (especially people who work for the government), yet Clemens is one of the only people ever charged with this offense. The grand jury claims Clemens prevented the “due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry.” Where does this power come from and how does it apply to whether Clemens stuck a syringe filled with vitamin B-12 in his behind?
Congress certainly has the power to legislate. Indeed, it has exclusive legislative power in the federal system, despite Congress’s nasty habit of handing out that power to unelected regulatory agencies like it was an evil witch luring children into a gingerbread house. Each house of Congress also has the power to “determine the Rules of its own Proceedings.” Indeed, the indictment cites one of the House’s rules, Rule X, which allows the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform “to investigate subjects within the Committee’s legislative jurisdiction as well as any matter within the jurisdiction of the other standing House committees.” Curiously, Rule X lists a number of specific subjects committed to the Government Reform and Oversight Committee, none of which have anything to do with Major League Baseball, drug use, or Roger Clemens. Which makes sense given the committee is called the “Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,” and not the “Committee on Major League Baseball, Steroids, and Roger Clemens.”
Now, as the indictment referred to, there is another provision of Rule X that allows the Government Reform and Oversight Committee to “at any time conduct investigations into any manner without regard to…[other clauses] conferring jurisdiction over the matter to another standing committee.” So, assuming some House committee has jurisdiction over Major League Baseball, steroids, and Roger Clemens, the Government Reform and Oversight Committee is allowed to simply usurp that jurisdiction for itself. So we’re talking about a super-committee that can do whatever it wants.
All that said, it doesn’t matter how the House chooses to organize itself or divide powers among committees. What matters is that these are internal procedures that only bind members of the House. The constitutional power to make internal rules cannot bind outsiders in any way, shape, or form. The House certainly cannot use internal rules to conduct random investigations of individuals outside of the government. (The House can investigate government employees, of course, as part of its oversight and impeachment functions.)
Even if we concede the Government Reform and Oversight Committee’s authority to conduct hearings into steroid use in Major League Baseball, the committee cannot conduct investigations of individual players under the pretense of legislative activities. At best, it’s a law enforcement issue for the executive and judicial branches.
More to the point, there is simply no legislative relevance to Clemens’s private use (or non-use) of any substances. Clemens is just one of thousands of Major League players. Even if there was widespread drug use that is now properly the subject of congressional intervention, it doesn’t matter whether one specific player used drugs or not. What matters is the aggregate statistics on such drug use. Congress had ready access to that information. The Government Reform and Oversight Committee went a step further, however, and tried to use that information to embarrass and disgrace individual players. That’s not legislating. It actually comes perilously close to a Bill of Attainder, which is expressly forbidden in the Constitution.
The point is that even if Clemens gave false answers to every single question he was asked, there’s no possible way it could have obstructed or impeded any valid legislative information-gathering activities. The only reason Congress asked the questions was to humiliate Clemens. It’s a fairly obvious abuse of government power.
Of course, some conservative types will hide behind the mantra, “He broke the law, and the rule of law must be upheld.” Fair enough. But if Congress doesn’t have to follow the law — i.e., the Constitution — then why does Roger Clemens?
And while many in the press and the public will cheer for Clemens getting what is perceived as his just deserts for being a “bad guy” as a player, these would-be stoners need to consider the implications of the arguments made here. Is punishing Roger Clemens so important that it requires turning a blind eye to a congressional committee’s claim to investigate an individual’s personal actions wherever they occur?
{ 36 comments }
All I can think about is the money down the drain for this clusterfark.
At least it keeps Congressmen too busy to molest the finance or health care industries…
The whole concept of anybody “testifying” before Congress is legally absurd.
Testimony is a judicial procedure (not legislative). Article III Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution vests all Federal judicial power/authority in the Supreme Court… not Congress.
Subpoena Power is also unique to the judiciary. Congress has no Constitutional authority to subpoena anybody {.. of course that did not stop Congress from granting itself such judicial power out of thin air, long ago}.
The power to command someone’s/anyone’s presence before you …without judicial due process — is a sweeping imperial power not found in the U.S. Constitution nor a free society.
_______
(Though in this specific case, Clemons appeared “voluntarily”… the threat of ‘Congressional Subpoena’ likely influenced his action strongly)
I always wondered the same thing every time someone comes to Congress for some show testimony.
Of course, it was a virtual certainty that after the Barry Bonds saga, the powers-that-be were going to have to trot out a Great White Defendant. Here you go.
As a Canadian, I find one of the most appalling aspects of the US legal system is the use of the “obstruction of (insert relevant term here)” offence. It seems to me to require that individuals aid the state in the buidling of a case against them. It is particularly grotesque in cases where there was subsequently determined to be no legitimate requirement for investigation.
Conversly if Roger said “Yeah I used steroids” Congress could not arrest him. In addtion if Roger had not sworn under oath, then this charge would have never appeared.
People need to watch the doc Bigger, Stronger, Faster. Great insight on american culture and it’s relationship with steroids. The hipocrisy flies high in this matter.
Could you believe how clueless Henry Waxman was about steroids and even how old you have to be to drink? To think not only is this idiot in charge of the laws for steroids, but his name is on the cap and trade bill. If people saw this and heard that name on anything they would rightfully wretch.
How did the USA come to be involved with steroid use in baseball? Are there Federal laws preventing steroid use?
#1 Analabolic steroids are illegal because repeated use can cause the user long term health effects or even death.
#2 If MLB and the owners commonly known as “Baseball” knew that players were using anabolic steroids, but turned a blind eye because the enhanced performance of the players drew in more revenues Congress has the authority to get involved via the Commerce Clause (Teams are paid by the public to travel around the country and play each other, MLB sells baseball gear all over the US, etc).
Nazi
-
Jew hating
+
The far stronger position of the U.S. in comparison to Germany
=
Christopher
LOL..Wha????
Yeah, that’s right, fascists didn’t appear straight from hell, and it wasn’t anything in German water. Worshippers of centralized power are numerous and exist in every country.
Do you know who Hitler’s great American hero was? He’s the same one as yours, whether you know it or not.
And your point is?
Hitler and W and Obama all work off the same base (you, en masse: “We have a problem, [fill in the blank]. Fuhrer, please fix it”). People don’t realize this because the different situations of different countries produce different (but all extremely lousy) results.
#1 Substitute beer, smokes, Big Macs, Coke’s, sunlight, etc. “can cause the user long term health effects or even death.” Let’s make them all illegal, yes that should work and give you a warm fuzzy feeling to boot.
#2 So basically in your Orwellian world, to the extent that Congress, the Judiciary, and the Executive can twist, parse, deconstruct, pervert, and redefine the intended purpose of the Constitution; they have unrestricted power and the ability to waste taxpayer dollars.
Or, if you like…see overkill, I mean mpolzkill.
Thanks, Wil. Why not swing for the cheap seats? Nothing else seems to work.
Always nice to see the personal attacks come up when someone provides a possible answer to a question.
#1 Unlike all of what you mentioned the negative health effects of using anabolic steroids as intended can not be offset but partaking in another activity. I can drink a beer every day and not develop liver cancer or become an alcholic, I can eat at MacDonalds every day for lunch and not gain weight or develop heart diesease. Now. Please tell me how my stating a fact regarding the legality of steroid use equates to my being in agreement with it being illegal?
#2 If you don’t like they way some parts of the Constituion are written then change it or leave the country. You did not have a choice as to whether or not you want to live here, but you do have the ability to leave.
Whoa, that “get out of the Fatherland” came quick that time didn’t it, Wil? Have fun dancing with this stooge.
Divert!
I merely answered the Canadians question was to why Congress got involved. I never said I agreed with Congress. So who’s the real Facist?
OK, maybe you’re trying to get into the mind of a fascist, good job. Be more clear if you’re playing devil’s advocate, anonymous Internet denizen.
You really do think the Constitution could be changed in our favor though, I take it?
First, I thought Dave may have been engaging in asking rhetorical questions to point out the absurd. This is what Congress is for?#1 You didn’t just state that they were illegal. You gave a specific reason as to why they were illegal and then you further defended that fact, so of course you agree they should be illegal, don’t you?You can because you are special, but what about the other guy. I can take steroids once or twice and likely have no ill effects. If I otherwise take care of myself, then sure I can curtail some ill effects. Also, steroids are often prescribed by doctors. Same with other drugs too…Keith Richards.#2 Wow and I though mpolz was overkill, Chriskill. You gave the interpretation that Congress used to rationalize its involement. If I wrongly assumed that you agreed with the interpretation then oops. I like the intention of the Constitution which is in large part to hold the politicians at bay. I don’t like it when it is perverted for political purposes and wasteful exercises. Some parts have obviously been changed, I did not think being critical of its misuse should be grounds for love it or leave it.
I drew a blank when I wrote that – the bastard commerce clause, of course!!!! Nice little discussion generated…..
Christopher – thanks for the answer. It did seem like you were all for it.
Dave, the use of perfomance enhacement drugs is common in most sports. Not only in sports, fighter pilots take drugs to have better concentration and stamina, a lot of students do the same.
Human growth hormone is undetectable and many other PEDs can be hidden with proper “cycling”. One could even arguee that the USA is on steroids.
Ben Johnson was roiding, so was Carl Lewis also, but in Lewis case, the olympic committee just plain ignored that.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2003/apr/24/athletics.duncanmackay
Carl Lewis has broken his silence on allegations that he was the beneficiary of a drugs cover-up, admitting he had tested positive for banned substances but claiming he was just one of “hundreds” of American athletes who were allowed to escape bans.
“There were hundreds of people getting off,” he said. “Everyone was treated the same.”
Lewis has now acknowledged that he failed three tests during the 1988 US Olympic trials, which under international rules at the time should have prevented him from competing in the Seoul games two months later.
The admission is a further embarrassment for the United States Olympic Committee, which had initially denied claims that 114 positive tests between 1988 and 2000 were covered up.
“side aside Congress’s lack of jurisdiction for a moment” yeah, about that:
In 1922 Congress made MLB exempt from anti-trust statutes, essentially allowing monopolies. If that isn’t enough for you, every stadium is built in some part with taxpayer dollars, federal and state. Is that jurisdiction enough for ya?
The antitrust laws themselves are unconstitutional. Furthermore, Congress did not exempt baseball in 1922. The Supreme Court held that year that baseball was not engaged in “interstate commerce “and thus not subject to the Sherman Act. Several decades later Congress codified a more limited statutory exemption. None of this, however, is relevant to the drug issue or Mr. Clemens.
Thou shalt not make Congresspersons look or feel foolish on national TV. Sins of this magnitude court indictments.
Any guesses what the final bill for this nonsense will be?
There has to be something radically wrong with a system where the President Obama can lie to Congress (and the people) with impunity at a State of the Union address (recall the Joe Wilson outburst over the statement that no federal funds would be used to provide healthcare for illegal immigrants) and a baseball star gets indicted for lying about something as trivial as steroid use, as if this is something that Congress has a constitutional authority to regulate. Another example of our tax dollars down the drain.
BTW – lest I appear partisan, you could equally well substitute George Bush or Bill Clinton
mpolzkill wrote: “You really do think the Constitution could be changed in our favor though, I take it?”
- Anything is possible, but do I think it will happen? No because the people like to be coddled and have been led to believe that “government” is their savoir by protecting them from when they stupid.
PS. I’m by no means an anarchist as I do believe in some form of limited government advocated by Dr. Paul.
Why would you tell Wil to get out of the country then?
I like Dr. Paul too, but we’ve both seen how well he’s done in his quixotic second career.
Will’s comment was, “#2 So basically in your Orwellian world, to the extent that Congress, the Judiciary, and the Executive can twist, parse, deconstruct, pervert, and redefine the intended purpose of the Constitution; they have unrestricted power and the ability to waste taxpayer dollars.”
At which point I said he can either advocate changing the Constitution or leave the country. The choice was his. His post made no sense because he was responding to an opinionated answer (my post) to a question about why Congress was getting involed.
Hey Chris, if you’re a fan of Dr. Paul, I thought you’d be as amused by this as I was [warning, the end is pretty tacky and about destroys the comedy value. If you're easily offended, quit watching at about 3:20]:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BT6ywTZ-_8c
The whole thing reminded me of Russ the Recreant (got that one out of the thesaurus; nice. I also liked “rat”. But the nearly synonymous pejorative the thesaurus is too timid to iclude, “Tom” is my fave.)
…and i thought americans didn’t get irony.
Vitamin B12 is bad now? I get that stuff all the time from the food I eat. What difference does it make if Roger Clemens got his B12 from eating fish, poultry, or injecting it in his behind? I suppose the injection is synthetic, not natural B12, and therefore is subject not only to “patent” but also in the cross hairs of government commercial regulators once again using the “commerce clause” as an excuse.
Clemens shouldn’t have bothered showing up “voluntarily”. If a subpoena, he should have just pleaded the fifth. The lesson here is to not trust politicians, as if anyone here needs to be reminded of that.
Shameful. The best pitcher of a generation turned into an alleged “criminal”. I hope a judge throws this out of court or a jury rejects it on the grounds that it’s all nonsense and unconstitutional. It seems to me this whole “case” is built on nothing but heresay and circumstantial evidence. What a waste of time.
Also, shame on baseball for letting Clemens hang like this. Where’s the players association? And shame on his ex-friend Andy Pettite for throwing Clemens under the bus. Cowardly. Also, shame on sports “journalists”, politicians, and their investigating goon squad for believing the testimony of a low life parasitic snitch like McNamee rather than giving Clemens the benefit of the doubt.
I will be boycotting MLB for the rest of the season unless they show some stones on this. Free Roger.
I tend to worry too much about human growth hormone, until my cousin told me that I can usually use a pair of height insoles.
Comments on this entry are closed.