Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2015 - 09:50pm PT
|
The reason that I ask is that I was listening to a radio program tonight, in which three conservative lawyers stated that they did not believe the SCOTUS would overturn the Obama action.
However, they did not state why.
To me, this Constitutional power seems to have virtually no limitation (except must be a federal law, and not impeachment)
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2015 - 10:03pm PT
|
And again, I ask you what is the limitation on his Pardon authority. You state "he must", but I don't see anything that allows you or anyone else to place any limitation upon his legal Constitutional right to pardon anyone he likes, in anyway that he likes.
Or is there some limitation? So far, you haven't cited any.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2015 - 10:06pm PT
|
Chief, I appreciate that you probably never have cause to interact with Constitutional lawyers, so don't have the option to ask them questions.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2015 - 10:10pm PT
|
Chief, you might find the comments on the issue by the Heritage Foundation illuminating. As you know, Heritage is one of the most conservative institutions in America. They say:
The power to pardon is one of the least limited powers granted to the President in the Constitution. The only limits mentioned in the Constitution are that pardons are limited to offenses against the United States (i.e., not civil or state cases), and that they cannot affect an impeachment process. A reprieve is the commutation or lessening of a sentence already imposed; it does not affect the legal guilt of a person. A pardon, however, completely wipes out the legal effects of a conviction. A pardon can be issued from the time an offense is committed, and can even be issued after the full sentence has been served. It cannot, however, be granted before an offense has been committed, which would give the President the power to waive the laws.
So, as your hypothetical, yes, any President can issue a pardon to anyone convicted of a crime.
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2015 - 10:12pm PT
|
Wade Icey...Clean up on ailse 5...The Chief...
LOL RJ
He will probably be disappointed but gotta say I've developed a grudging respect for the Chief in all his whackadoodle, wingnut glory. Hopefully Vice versa. He comes from a place of honesty and has the courage of his convictions. however misguided. He's authentic. He's nuts. He's living his dream. He's a climber, A vet, a fisherman and a rescuer.... and he's wrong about everything.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2015 - 10:14pm PT
|
Chief Justice John Marshall in United States v. Wilson (1833) also commented on the benign aspects of the pardon power: "A pardon is an act of grace, proceeding from the power entrusted with the execution of the laws, which exempts the individual, on whom it is bestowed from the punishment the law inflicts for a crime he has committed. It is the private, though official act of the executive magistrate...." Another purpose of the pardon power focuses not on obtaining justice for the person pardoned, but rather on the public-policy purposes of the government.
The public-policy purposes of the pardon were echoed by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Biddle v. Perovich (1927): "A pardon in our days is not a private act of grace from an individual happening to possess power. It is a part of the constitutional scheme."
Presidents have sought to use the pardon power to overcome or mitigate the effects of major crises that afflicted the polity. President George Washington granted an amnesty to those who participated in the Whiskey Rebellion; Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson issued amnesties to those involved with the Confederates during the Civil War; and Presidents Gerald R. Ford and James Earl Carter granted amnesties to Vietnam-era draft evaders.
chief, was Washington and Lincoln, Ford and Carter wrong, and commit unconstitutional acts????
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2015 - 10:18pm PT
|
YOU were the one who said they had been convicted by a jury of their peers.
But it doesn't matter:
A pardon can be issued from the time an offense is committed,
Note that the members of the confederacy were NOT citizens of the US---they had succeeded from the Union. They were citizens of the Confederacy, a foreign country. They were not convicted of a crime.
And yet, Lincoln pardoned them.
You are saying that Lincoln was wrong??????
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2015 - 10:23pm PT
|
In order to do so, they must first be legal citizens of the US unless the crime which they committed is violent in nature.
Gosh, if that is so, how did the US convict Manuel Noriega, who was NOT a citizen. Noriega was tried on eight counts of drug trafficking, racketeering, and money laundering in April 1992. He was convicted, and served 7 years until deported to France for trial.
So he was NOT a citizen, and was NOT tried for a violent crime.
In fact, he was not even in the country!
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2015 - 10:23pm PT
|
I knew you'd be disappointed. Don't worry I'll delete it and deny it later.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2015 - 10:31pm PT
|
-----No. Those individuals were above were all CONVICTED Ken.
Wrong, they were not.
-----What was the supposed crime/s that Lincoln pardoned them confederates of?
Treason
-----Not one of these five million illegal immigrants have been convicted of anything. They can't be. That is according to the law that Obama is attempting to change.
Agree that they have not been convicted. However, they are still entitled by the Constitution to due process, and found to violate the law, before a sentence of deportation can be carried out. If pardoned, that sentence cannot be carried out. Neither can a sentence of incarceration.
So I claim to a sheriff that you are an illegal. You claim that you are not, but can't instantly put your hands on your birth certificate (you are fishing). Are you saying that you do not have a right to a trial before deportation? You are not allowed to present your side of things? You cannot be convicted?
Remember that the Constitution guarantees that you are innocent until proven guilty IN A COURT OF LAW.
Didn't you watch The People's Court????
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2015 - 10:36pm PT
|
As Justice Stephen Field wrote in Ex parte Garland (1867),
"If granted before conviction, it prevents any of the penalties and disabilities consequent upon conviction from attaching [thereto];
if granted after conviction, it removes the penalties and disabilities, and restores him to all his civil rights; it makes him, as it were, a new man, and gives him a new credit and capacity....
A pardon reaches both the punishment prescribed for the offence and the guilt of the offender....so that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offence."
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2015 - 10:42pm PT
|
he stated over and over that he is not authorized to do such a thing, legally per the constitution?
Chief, I cannot find any quotes or videos of him saying that. I find lots of wingnut sites that SAY he did, but they don't have links to anything, either.
Perhaps you can provide something that backs up your statement.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2015 - 10:45pm PT
|
And Ken, that pardon came with specifics that each individual had to agree to in writing. It was not a Carte Blanc pardon.
You are referring to Lincoln. And that is exactly the case with the pardon that Obama issued. There are conditions.
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
|
Feb 26, 2015 - 06:46am PT
|
In other words, you're a RINO.
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
|
Feb 26, 2015 - 07:29am PT
|
Sure thing, Dave.
You regularly post that you're a registered Republican. Yet, your voting record and comments indicate you clearly do not support Republican positions.
Here, you use your voter registration as a tool (or an excuse) to undermine conservatives.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Feb 26, 2015 - 07:46am PT
|
The Republicans are out preforming our wildest expectations in bringing back our Country from the Obama ruin....
They've been so active in fixing the economy, creating jobs, repairing our infrastructure, investing in the future.
Let's see, what have they done, sent a bill to build the Keystone XL Pipeline (after refusing to use American Steel or put an 8 cents tax per gallon paid to the Gov).
The Pipeline has not passed it's environmental review or cleared legal issues concerning the land rights.
This is nothing more than Congressional Over reach since only the State Dept. can approve the pipeline, not a Congress in bed with Corporations that will directly benefit from the Congressional actions.
Now they want to shut down the Homeland Security Department in a hissy fit.
They gave away a climbing area in Arizona to a Foreign mining Company.
They took out provisions in Dodd/Frank so Wall Street can once again bring down the economy while they get rich.
They voted to appeal Obamacare again
What else??
Fight the President at every turn and say he doesn't Love America!
Plan on Impeachment of the President, since they hate him.
Is that all they got?
What happened to all their promises about jobs??
Where are the jobs??
Here are the facts, there will be no jobs until we get rid of the Repubs that want us to fight over jobs to keep wages low.
|
|
pyro
Big Wall climber
Calabasas
|
|
|
Feb 26, 2015 - 07:57am PT
|
Republic did help create an Ebola vaccine!
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Feb 26, 2015 - 07:59am PT
|
Mr Fry, I suggest you do some reading of economics. Raising wages doesn't create jobs.
That said I am horrified by the Repubs' antagonism to Janet Yellen, the hottest babe out there.
I am more horrified by the Repubs' two bills before Congress: the "Audit the Fed" and the
other one, heretofor unnamed, which would require the Fed to adopt a rule that would govern
its decisions on setting interest rates. Just what we need, professional Congressional morons
telling the Fed how to go about its business. More incredibly why was this deemed to be
third page business section news by the LA Times? Oh, pardon me, I forgot that an NFL
stadium article is more worthy of being on the front page.
|
|
Larry Nelson
Social climber
|
|
|
Feb 26, 2015 - 08:00am PT
|
Crankster,
Yes it was a civil discussion and not being a lawyer, I enjoyed the conversation concerning pardons. I would love to hear John E's take on this. He is always informed and civil, one of the best commenters on these political threads.
It does appear that a pardon is possible. It is what it is. Even though illegal aliens are technically breaking the law, I don't think anyone here views them as criminals.
A pardon still would not entitle them to all of the freebies afforded to citizens, and enforcing immigration laws by going after employers would not be impeded. This would be the humane path.
Having said all that, there is the issue of employment numbers in this economy. Even though unemployment numbers are down, the number of Americans working full time is down also. Craig is really good at coming up with these numbers quickly. With a flood of cheap unskilled labor coming in, this will conflict with one of the presidents prime constituencies. Wages in the construction trades have been supressed by cheap immigrant labor. Probably has always been the case, but this will have some affect on the presidents legacy, which seems to be important to him and the press.
OK, I bumped a political thread to the top, now I need to repent and bump the great Kichatna thread above this one.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!