Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Trump's Pardons


  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

#41 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,626 posts

Posted 29 August 2017 - 07:48 AM

View Postsierraleone, on 29 August 2017 - 04:16 AM, said:

View PostLord of the Sword, on 28 August 2017 - 10:17 PM, said:

What you were talking about wasn't just impeachment proceedings though. You were saying that Congress should issue a direct THREAT to the President of the US. Do this and we try our best to remove you. That is the very nature of a Coup De Tat. If Congress felt a President had committed High Crimes (Which warrants impreachment) Then by all means they should exercise their Constitutional power of impeachment proceedings.
...
What you were talking about is Congress essentially becoming President. Congress telling the President: Do this, or we try impeaching. Don't do that, or else you're gone from office. In that scenario, you have essentially done away with the entire executive branch, and just given that power to Congress. So no, I'm not for that apporach.

It shouldn't be clear what checks they are willing to carry out and under what circumstances, instead of leaving what would otherwise be very unclear? Why does making that clear automatically make it intimidation? Regular laws applied to citizens are made fairly clear to the rest of us.

To use your analogy of regular laws and citizens. What you're talking about doing would be like the FBI arresting a bank manager of a bank, for issuing a loan to someone. You're talking about punishing someone for doing something they have the LEGAL right to do. The President has the LEGAL right to pardon anyone he sees fit to pardon. Period. You may not like who they have pardoned, but they have the RIGHT to pardon whomever they want. I certainly didn't like Obama pardoning the traitor Chelsea Manning. But even I didn't suggest that Congress threaten Obama with impeachment over that pardoning.


Quote

Note: Some countries have the elected members of congress/parliament carrying out the duties of the executive branch, and the head of state and head of congress/parliament are the same person (typically a Prime Minister). Not a foreign concept to some of us at all.

True, some countries do have a system of government like that. Just like some countries put people who cross their borders illegals in prison for a very, very, long time. But that's not the system of Government we have here in America. The Founding Father's made it clear, they wanted 3 branches of Government. They didn't want an all powerful executive branch, which is why they gave Congress the power of the purse. They wanted checks and balances. But checks on another branch of Government is not threatening the other branch to do what you want. That's not a check on power, that is usurping power. Big difference.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

The last republican leaning independent on this message board. All others have been silenced and driven off, or outright banned. Only ONE remains. I guess HighLander had it right all along....In the end, there can be only ONE.

#42 gsmonks

gsmonks

    Tree Psychiatrist

  • Islander
  • 4,832 posts

Posted 29 August 2017 - 08:02 AM

The president has the right to pardon, just as a private citizen has the right to protect himself. But the president does not have the right to abuse that power, any more than a private citizen can kill someone over a perceived threat.
Capitalism is a pyramid scheme run by the 1%.

#43 Omega

Omega

    Nous sommes tous Franšais

  • Moderator
  • 3,988 posts

Posted 29 August 2017 - 08:35 AM

All three branches are designed such that they can only operate if the people in them act in good faith. If we get a Congress that does not act in good faith in a supermajority, then yes, they could nullify much of the power of the executive. But if we get a President that doesn't act in good faith (as we clearly have now) then impeachment is the only option anyone has. Which is why impeachment is designed as a political matter, and the analogy to a law enforcement proceeding is invalid.

#44 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,819 posts

Posted 30 August 2017 - 04:13 PM

Apparently there is a legal challenge (though challenge may be too strong a word) against this pardon. As I shared before Arpaio has requested to get his guilty verdict vacated, as he was in the middle of an appeal and basically says he wants to clear his name (& the consequences of a guilty verdict) and was appealing the verdict, but we all now know an appeal is a waste of time and resources he says.

WaPo, quoting the Arizona Republic:

Quote

U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton canceled former Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s upcoming sentencing hearing for his criminal contempt-of-court conviction, telling attorneys not to file replies to motions that were pending before his recent presidential pardon.

However, Bolton on Tuesday stopped short of throwing out the conviction based solely on Arpaio’s request. Instead she ordered Arpaio and the U.S. Department of Justice, which is prosecuting the case, to file briefs on why she should or shouldn’t grant Arpaio’s request.

Of course, just because Arpaio initial motion here was not a slam dunk doesn't mean it will be a slum dunk for the other side either.

She also touches on a Advocacy group which has sent a letter to the Integrity & Criminal division of the DoJ arguing that this pardon goes beyond constitution limits, if the pardon violates some other part of the constitution (the 5th or 14th amendment being specifically mentioned).

Quote

Put simply, the argument is that the president cannot obviate the court’s powers to enforce its orders when the constitutional rights of others are at stake. “The president can’t use the pardon power to immunize lawless officials from consequences for violating people’s constitutional rights,” says one of the lawyers who authored the letter.
​….
Those challenging the pardon understand there is no precedent for this — but neither is there a precedent for a pardon of this type.
….
In other words, if the president can pardon anyone who defies court orders to enforce constitutional protections, then those constitutional protections are rendered meaningless. It is a creative argument, but then, this president has created new and disturbing challenges to democratic norms.
​….
"As with any other presidential power, the power to pardon is constrained by the ordinary requirements of federal law applicable to all public officials. For example, if representatives of a pardon-seeker arrived in the Oval Office with a bundle of cash that the president accepted in return for a pardon, there is little doubt that the president would be guilty of the crime of bribery. . . .

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#45 Omega

Omega

    Nous sommes tous Franšais

  • Moderator
  • 3,988 posts

Posted 31 August 2017 - 11:04 AM

^I find this argument fascinating just from a legal perspective. Since amendments by definition supersede the original text, Trump cannot issue pardons that violate amendments.

#46 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,819 posts

Posted 18 September 2017 - 08:50 PM

Reading today WaPo's article Trump's pardon of Arpaio can - and should - be overturned.

Part of the argument turns on the wording of Article Two of the constitution:

Quote

The President shall be Commander in Chief … and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Not absolute power, or unlimited power, or unchecked power, or even the power.

From the article:

Quote

Is this use of the pardon power constitutional? In most cases, however controversial, courts should not second-guess the president’s use of the pardon power. But when the Constitution says that the president “shall have Power,” that does not mean unlimited power. It means power that is not inconsistent with other parts of the Constitution.

For example, the Constitution says “Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,” but that doesn’t mean Congress can tax white people at a different rate than black people. The Constitution says the president “shall have Power” to make treaties, but that doesn’t mean he can make a treaty that abolishes freedom of speech.

Edited by sierraleone, 18 September 2017 - 08:50 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users