@David_desJ Well, no. I'm working on a detailed article with legal sources, but Congress is allowed to make its own rules and manage its own facilities. So if it wants to have a security operation for the Capitol, that's okay. ...
@David_desJ It's analogous to Google hiring its own security guards. But having security guards doesn't mean it's permitted to set up a security office in Tampa and make arrests. It's worth remembering that the Constitution enumerates the things the government is allowed to do.
@David_desJ So my original point is "where in the constitution is the Congress authorized to have its own national police force not under the Executive Branch?" It's not enough to say "where is it forbidden?" It must be _authorized_ in the Constitution.
@David_desJ As the statute says, the jurisdiction is strictly limited on a street by street level. That's reasonable: it's the Capitol police, it needs a definition of what is included in "the Capitol". But policing is an Executive power; that's why DoJ, FBI are under the Executive Branch.
@David_desJ Outside the grounds of the Capitol, it doesn't look like the Constitution authorizes a separate private police force under the control of the Speaker. Beyond that, there are some real civil liberties issues: the USCP is not bound by FOIA, it's not bound to publish ...
@David_desJ or comment on discipline. It operates outside of the usual standards. There's a whole body of case law and statute built up on Executive functions. Does it apply? Who knows?
@David_desJ @threadreaderapp unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
