American Legal System - baseball steroid issue
 

Does anyone here have a legal background or understand this better that could explain it to me? I am curious how the whole congressional hearings thing and the whole proceedings actually work?

Why are the baseball players forced to testify in the very first place? Under what part of consitutional law forces them to appear when they have not been specifically charged with any crime? ...and it also seems that they were forced to testify against themselves, and if they did not reveal whole truths, they are then able to be charged with perjury?

is this a correct summation of the situation? how did the government ever get some heinous powers to force someone to go to a hearing, and also testify potentially against themselves, when no actual arrest for a crime has occured?

I can understand a simple case, if someone is caught in possession of a drug that is illegal, then they are charged and defend themselves in court, but this whole baseball fiasco seems to me like the government is way out of control and stepping on all sorts of rights, no actual chargeable crime seems to have been committed until they have created crimes by the actual proceedings themselves?

any thoughts from legal experts?

Congress has investigatory powers under the US Constitution. This means they can SUBPOENA (ie., force under pain of jailing for contempt) anyone under their jurisdiction to testify in their hearings. As long as the hearings are not judicial in nature (ie., to find legal fault and hand down punishment) which would violate the judiciary's constitutional sphere of power, they can investigate whatever the fuck they want under the cover of "in aid of legislation". Supposedly, these investigations will give them the factual findings they need to craft laws.

Given the US Constitution's very broad Commerce Clause (as interpreted by the US Supreme Court), this power is quite broad.

thanks for the explanation $5...

it seems like scary power that they have been given, I wonder how it was ever deemed constitutional? it just seems so wrong in a supposedly free country that they can force you to appear, make you answer questions that you would rather not, even though you have not been charged with anything, hold you in contempt if you refuse to answer or if they deem later that you didn't answer truthfully

this subpoena to a congressional hearing stuff sounds more like it belongs in a fascist state and not in a free world country :2 cents:

D-Null,

The Constitution does protect you from self-incrimination. That's why some of the individuals unfortunate enough to be dragged into a Congressional committee investigation plead their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Whatever you say in the committee hearings can and might be held against you--either as direct admission evidence or a court (in a future criminal case) might ding you for perjury.

Imagine if they did this with every other drug people use.

so basically due to the public climate of the whole issue, pleading the fifth would result in severe loss of public reputation, making it virtually an impossible option for those that have been called up, and also putting them in a situation where they were pretty much forced to lie... shitty situation all around by congress to be allowed to do this :2 cents:

I just hope any records made by those using steroids are erased.

Actually, that's the part that gets really scary. Congress doesn't hold hearings for which recreational drug to ban, they came up with a more "efficient" system. They passed the Controlled Substances Act and tasked the DOJ and HHS with putting drugs in a CLASSIFICATION system. If the DOJ/HHS decide to ban a drug, they just reclassify it. It used to take FOREVER to ban drugs (pre 1930s). Now, as in the case of Ecstacy in the mid80s., a drug can become illegal with the publication on the Federal Register notifying the public of a drug reclassification. Very quick. No fuss. No muss.

I think they did that recently with the "andro" that McGwire was using?

You nailed it on the head. The hearings put people in a very tough situation--torn between looking guilty by pleading the 5th or fucking yourself if you answer wrong. It's fucked either way but Congress has always dragged people in for investigatory hearings. The most fucked up and infamous examples are those McCarthy anti-communist witchhunt hearings of the 50s. Trial by innuendo.

yeah, these congressional hearings are wrong in a free country

a similar concept would be if any one of us were dragged in front of a jury with our mother watching and asked to detail our lifetime drug use under threat of perjury laws, it just isn't right to put people in that kind of situation that haven't been charged with anything



things like this need to go the way of the waterboarding imo, they are not up to the standard of what we expect from great free countries in this world :2 cents:

waste of money. that's in a nutshell

I didn't even think of that, they are spending tax payers hard earned money on it too, money they forcibly take from all of us that work or run businesses for a living

in the grand scheme of things, really think about what they're wasting TIME and MONEY on. :1orglaugh it's not really funny, just sad