4 ms·

For anyone wondering: the serjeant-at-arms is a mostly ceremonial role that keeps order in the common parts of the Parliament. You mainly see them carrying the

by bertil 8y ago

For anyone wondering: the serjeant-at-arms is a mostly ceremonial role that keeps order in the common parts of the Parliament. You mainly see them carrying the Royal Mace, the symbol of executive power that is kept in Parliament for obvious symbolic reasons. They litterally enforce the authority of the Sovreign. https://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/principal/serjeant/ https://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/principal/serj... Sending them in town has no close equivalent in the US, maybe threatening someone to be in Contempt of the Supreme Court.

nhf 8y ago
Probably the closest thing in the US would be a Congressional subpoena. In contrast to the UK Parliament's shakier justification, both Congressional rules and the Supreme Court case Wilkinson v. United States have affirmed that committees can subpoena witnesses.
ubernostrum 8y ago
Sending them in town has no close equivalent in the US, maybe threatening someone to be in Contempt of the Supreme Court. The US House of Representatives and the US Senate also have Sergeants at Arms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergeant_at_Arms_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergeant_at_Arms_of_the_United... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergeant_at_Arms_of_the_United_States_Senate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergeant_at_Arms_of_the_United... There have been multiple occasions in recent decades when, in theory, either house of Congress could have resorted to enforcement of a Congressional subpoena by sending its Sergeant at Arms to arrest the non-responsive party. The most recent occurrence was early in Trump's term when several of his high officials refused to appear before Congressional committees which sought to question them; there was talk of whether Congress would provoke a showdown by issuing and enforcing subpoenas. And a court ruling during the George W. Bush administration confirmed Congress could compel members of the executive branch to appear and answer questions: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-congress-bush-idUSN3132685720080731 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-congress-bush-idUSN31...

by bertil 8y ago

nhf 8y ago

Probably the closest thing in the US would be a Congressional subpoena. In contrast to the UK Parliament's shakier justification, both Congressional rules and the Supreme Court case Wilkinson v. United States have affirmed that committees can subpoena witnesses.

ubernostrum 8y ago

Sending them in town has no close equivalent in the US, maybe threatening someone to be in Contempt of the Supreme Court. The US House of Representatives and the US Senate also have Sergeants at Arms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergeant_at_Arms_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergeant_at_Arms_of_the_United... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergeant_at_Arms_of_the_United_States_Senate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergeant_at_Arms_of_the_United... There have been multiple occasions in recent decades when, in theory, either house of Congress could have resorted to enforcement of a Congressional subpoena by sending its Sergeant at Arms to arrest the non-responsive party. The most recent occurrence was early in Trump's term when several of his high officials refused to appear before Congressional committees which sought to question them; there was talk of whether Congress would provoke a showdown by issuing and enforcing subpoenas. And a court ruling during the George W. Bush administration confirmed Congress could compel members of the executive branch to appear and answer questions: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-congress-bush-idUSN3132685720080731 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-congress-bush-idUSN31...