Congress is a legislative body, but it must have procedures that enable it to acquire information. Furthermore, Congress must keep a critical eye on those who administer laws acts and he spend the money appropriate. The business of Congress is not to govern the country, but rather to see to it that those who do govern perform the functions properly. To performance legislative functions effectively, Congress must have the power to investigate. While the Constitution is silent on the subject, and the courts have had little difficulty in concluding that the power to investigate is a necessary corollary of Congress is other powers, particularly in view of the implied powers provisions of article 1, section 8, clause 18. In leading decision on this subject, the grain against Dougherty of 1927, Justice Willis standard answer noted that in legislative practice the power to secure need information by means of investigations has long been treated as an attribute of the power to legislate. It was so regarded in the British Parliament and in colonial legislatures before the American Revolution and like you has prevailed and be carried into effect in both houses of Congress and in a state legislatures.

However broad the constitutional power to investigate may be, is necessarily subject to recognise imitations. In the case of Queen against United States 1955, chief Justice Earl Warren pointed out that the investigatory power cannot be used to enquire into private affairs unrelated to the legislative purpose of this power does not extend to an area in which Congress is forbidden to legislate. He added that the power to investigate must not be confused with any the powers of law enforcement which are assigned by the Constitution to the executive and the judiciary. Warren stressed above all that the legislative power investigations are subject to specific individual guarantees of the Bill of Rights, notably the fifth amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination.

These express limitations on legislative investigating power are not as impressive as they may seem to be at first glance. It is abundantly clear that the power of Congress, including the power to propose constitutional amendments almost any subject a broad enough to justify almost any investigation. Furthermore, when Congress authorises an investigation, a legislative purposes presumed by the courts. Witnesses refused to testify subject to punishment the content and members of Congress are not subject to liability for slander under the speech and may cause of the Constitution.

Recent years have seen widespread criticism of congressional investigating committees main underground their purpose is not always to provide information on legislation but rather to subject individuals to public exposure as in cases involving allegations of disloyalty. The courts have usually ruled that the fact that an investigation may expose someone to public company is incidental and is not invalidate enquiry.

Legislative committees operate on the fiction that the destruction of a person's reputation is not technically punishment in which it follows that most of the rights guaranteed to defendants accused of crime by the Constitution do not apply to persons were being investigated by legislative committees. For example, the rule of double jeopardy does not apply to investigation procedures. A person declare by one investigating committee in regard to allegations as subversive activity may be investigated further on the same charges.