Fifth Amendment

The purpose of the Fifth Amendment was to protect private citizens from an abusive government. It's short. Read it yourself. "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
It says:
1. The government can't hold a private individual on a charge of murder or similar, without that person having first been judged potentially guilty by a grand jury.
2. The government can't accuse a private individual twice for the same offense.
3. The government can't compel an accused individual to be a witness against himself (basis of "taking the fifth").
4. The government cannot deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
5. The government cannot confiscate private property without just compensation.
Now look over the five points with respect to the Issa congressional hearings during which Lois Lerner twice" declared the fifth".
Notice that in the Issa congressional hearings, Lois Lerner was not present as a private citizen, nor was she being accused of a capital crime. She was there as an employee of the IRS, which was originally set up by Congress. The Issa hearing was merely an attempt to learn from Lois Lerner how she was conducting her job. Since this is a question of oversight, which is the responsibility of Congress, it is an obviously logical question. It has nothing to do with her being accused of a capital crime nor asking her to be a witness against herself in any ostensible illegal operation. Her use of the Fifth Amendment in declining to answer the congressional committees questions is completely inappropriate.
The thing that really bothers me is that apparently Chairman Issa doesn't see this.
When employees of the federal government refuse to answer questions of congressional committees, the obvious procedure is to hold them in contempt of Congress. In 1821, the Supreme Court held that Congress' power to hold someone in contempt was essential to ensure that Congress was "... not exposed to every indignity and interruption that rudeness, caprice, or even conspiracy, may mediate against it."
By use of subpoenas, Congressional rules empower all its standing committees with the authority to compel witnesses to produce testimony and documents for subjects under its jurisdiction. Lois Lerner was issued a subpoena.
Following a contempt citation, the person cited is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subjected to punishment as the chamber may dictate. The criminal offense of "contempt of Congress" sets the penalty at not less than one month nor more than twelve months in jail and a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $1,000.
Is there some good reason why Chairman Issa is not following this procedure?