Nadler Introduces Resolution Opposing Bush Pardons

[Hissyspit]

Source: After Downing Street

Nadler Introduces Resolution Opposing Possible Bush Pardons of His Own Subordinates for Crimes He Authorized
By David Swanson

Here's a resolution, hot off the presses from Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the Constitution Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee: H.RES.1531, "Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the President of the United States should not issue pardons to senior members of his administration during the final 90 days of his term of office," Sponsor: Rep Nadler, Jerrold (introduced 11/20/2008). There is a petition promoting this resolution, through which you can write to your representative and senators at
http://democrats.com/nadler-pardons


Read more: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/37830

[babylonsister]

1. Ooooh, doggies! Can you hear me yell in joy?! Hot stuff! Rec'd! nt

[tekisui]

2. KNR!!

[onehandle]

3. Wow! Is this ever not going to work. nt

[babylonsister]

4. It sure beats kvetching about the spineless Dems. nt

[rhett o rick]

33. Oh damn, I was just getting into the kvetching too. I support this and have

already contacted my Congress-critters incl Senators. They need to speak out also.

[Demeter]

5. A Girl Can Dream, Can't She?

Impossible things are happening every day around here.

[zelta gaisma]

55. yeah:) at least he's making the gesture :D

[bjobotts]

79. If dems just initiated impeachment proceedings, wouldn't that prevent Bush pardoning anyone

[bjobotts]

80. If under impeachment a president can't pardon, right?

[progressoid]

8. No kidding.

How about a resolution to ban the sun from shining too.

[mdmc]

17. even worse then voting for third parties

:eyes:

[specimenfred1984]

38. Why won't it work? Got any sensible retort?

Didn't think so, just another cartoonish "It'll never work" characterization from a propagandized member of Americacult.

[eallen]

41. A House resolution has all the legal force of sending a Hallmark card.

Whether it "works" or not depends on what one expects it to do. Do you think Bush cares at this point what the House thinks?

:hippie:

[FREEWILL56]

44. You are probably right.

There should be more to it than a resolution so why not make it a law? Why 90 days? I think that an outgoing president can know before 90 days whether or not his party will continue controlling power or not that may cause him to want to issue those pardons to cover crimes of his administration. What that good timeperiod may be I'm not sure. Maybe 120 days, 150 days, or even 180 days? Maybe make it illegal altogether to pardon those in the upper levels of government including the justice department, the house, the senate, and any in any other branch such as homeland security, the cia and nsa, or even the military above maybe a certain rank? This idea sounds better to me as opposed to just limiting timeperiods of such pardons. In the end it really doesn't matter as that bunch or asswipes will get away with it one way or another.

[Wabbajack_]

45. Wouldn't be consititional

And he'd veto it anyway.

[loudsue]

70. THAT is why we need a constitutional amendment.

There should never be a reason for a president to pardon members of his own staff or cabinet, or anyone acting under his direction, if that person is charged with a crime. It only leads to the types of incredible corruption and criminality that we have seen under the bush administration.

WE NEED A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NOW!!

[FREEWILL56]

82. I think I agree with you on that.

There's no way a criminal should be able to pardon his accomplices in crime and just because he is the president should make this all the more important as a check and balance and help to insure that justice is going to be done in such a case or at least take out this aspect of possible injustice. Heaven knows bush has thwarted justice in far too many ways and we all know of his criminal activities.

[Bearware]

87. There's time because a constitutional amendment can be retroactive

In the U.S. you cannot make an ex post facto LAW (from the Latin for "after the fact") or retroactive law by Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution. Note, I am not a constitutional lawyer and there are some ex post facto nuances but I think the above is basically true.

However a constitutional amendment that reduces or eliminates a prior presidents pardon power should work just fine. The more egregious
the pardons W makes before going on the lam, the easier it will be to get a constitutional amendment passed, even though it may take a
few years. If the bread lines are long enough then it won't take much more time than the next election where anyone against the amendment in the house, senate or state legislatures stands a good chance of unemployment for opposing such an amendment.

I try to be an optimist on these things.:evilgrin:

[croton]

57. amen

[HCE SuiGeneris]

67. Yum. Pizza!

[tclambert]

47. From the Constitution of the United States

Under powers of the President enumerated in Article II, section 2: "he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in
Cases of Impeachment."

There is no provision for Congressional or Judicial review. The Congressman is just making noise.

[croton]

56. For those who slept through Civics 101 in 7th grade:

a resolution is simply a formal statement, in this case also voted upon by Congress. It has the same "weight" as a New Years' resolution.

[FiveGoodMen]

68. I love it when ignore-list candidates self-identify

[Soylent Brice]

6. wow.

i'm genuinely shocked to see something so intelligent.

kickety.

[Auggie]

7. Sounds like another resolution for Nancy to ignore

Prove me wrong Madam Speaker

[blackbart99]

24. Yeah...one more chance for Pelosi to puss out...n/t

[croton]

58. She said she's sorry but...

she is STILL trying to decide whether she is for an automakers' bailout, against their filing bankruptcy, using any means at her disposal to save them, or summoning them to her office to milk them for some sort of concessions. See how much influence a 14% approval rating gets you?

[Stardust]

88. I missed that - what is Pelosi sorry for? Welcome to DU!

[Bake]

9. We state our opposition in the strongest terms possible.

Not that it's actually worth a damn, but we strongly oppose this. Strong letter to follow.

:rofl:

Bake

[valerief]

22. At least the rethugs lace their letters with anthrax. nt

[HopeHoops]

10. "Uncle Dickie? I can pardons us outs of them internets war crimes things, right?"

[The Backlash Cometh]

11. Well, at least they'll have that to add to the historical documents.

[yodermon]

12. I'd Rather see a Sense of the House resolution that they will Subpoena the Fuck out of any

motherfucker that shrub pardons to find out the full extent of the treason.
Since they're pardoned, they're immune.
Since they're immune they can be compelled to testify under threat of Contempt of Congress if they decline.

[Bette Noir]

13. Thanks for the link.

That's a very convenient way to address my representatives. I bookmarked that page, too.

[RufusTFirefly]

14. Alas, I think the Bushies could finally make a legitimate "separation of powers" argument

Up to now, they've all been specious. But maybe not this one.

According to Article 2, Section 2:

"he {the President, that is} shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

Please note, Nancy: I don't think pardoning would be an issue if impeachment had been kept on the table.

[zipplewrath]

25. It's a sense of the House Resoultion

It's nonbinding. No separation of powers issue. It's a recommendation, not a restriction.

[RufusTFirefly]

26. Right. It has no teeth. And, by law, it can't. So it's simply an empty gesture.

Directed at a guy who's basically said "Fuck you" to Congress for the past 8 years. Based on all the last-minute deregulation he's been doing, I doubt he'll do anything in response to this recommendation other than laugh derisively.

[nichomachus]

28. If Bush ignores this, he ignores it at his own peril

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will give him their sternest look and won't even sing the carols at Cheney's Xmas party. They will stand around the piano, but they will merely move their lips -- in a stunning gesture of defiance.

[RC]

86. Yeah and this for a guy doing end runs around Congress. By-passing Congress

at the last minute to get more of this agenda in before the bell rings.
There should have been impeachment hearings scheduled Monday, October 1, 2001 @ 9:00 A.M. EDT.

[rhett o rick]

59. When that article was put in the Constitution there was quite a debate about whether or not

a President would misuse this power to pardon himself or pardon those that might implicate him. I believe it is one of the Federalist Papers. This is why they included impeachment. Which is the way it should be handled, however, if Congress passed a law that stated that the President could not pardon anyone that was involved with him in the commission of a crime, then it would be challenged and the SCOTUS would have to decide the intent of the Constitution. Not much of a chance I agree but a chance.

[demnan]

15. Government Reform will need a new Chairman now that

Waxman has gone to Energy and Commerce. Nadler might just fit the bill on that one.

[BrklynLiberal]

16. My Rep. Yes!!!!

[smiley]

18. No brainer for me!

but these people are career criminals, much the same as our congress is, and will probably be let off w/o even a slap on the wrist. We need a world effort to bring justice to our cause.

[kirby]

19. Congress has no authority here...

What a joke. First, it is just a 'Sense of the House' resolution. Second, the separation of powers does not allow the Congress to interfere with any Presidents pardon power.

[Diamonique]

20. I was just going to ask about that.

I didn't think Congress had the power to do anything about a President's pardons, but I wasn't sure.

[rhett o rick]

35. Not sure that's true. I heard on a talk show that there is precedence for

Congress outlawing the President from pardoning anyone that might have been involved with himself in criminal activities. Haven't done any research yet.

[kirby]

43. "Sense of the Congress" is a non-binding resolution. n/t

[rhett o rick]

46. I understand. However, I believe Congress does have some power here if they were to choose to use it

which I doubt.

[kirby]

63. Just go read the Constitution...

You don't need to take my word for it...

"Article 2, Section 2:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

Nadlers 'resolution' is nothing more than political theater. As stated in the Constitution, 'except in Cases of Impeachment'. Had Congress impeached Bush, they would not have set the conditions for the executive branch to exercise its pardon powers. The only way to get rid of this is via Amending the Constitution.

[rhett o rick]

65. I have read the Constitution and the Federalist Papers and think there is room to maneuver here.

The SCOTUS could rule that it was never the intent of the Constitution to grant the President the power to pardon himself or those involved with him in the commission of a crime. Just sayin'.

[tclambert]

50. See post #14

The Constitution is clear on this. The President "shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." The President can pardon whomever he wants. Congress and the Supreme Court have no oversight authority. And Gerald Ford established a precedent when he pardoned Richard Milhous "I am not a crook (Yes, he was, too)" Nixon that the President may pardon people without explicitly specifying what crimes he's pardoning them for.

I kind of hope Bush doesn't think of that last part, and unintentionally reveals the crimes they have committed. But no, his legal team will put together the actual wording and he will issue vague blanket pardons for "any crimes X may have committed between 2001 and 2009 while in the service of the Executive Branch." Almost forgot the most important part: "And I double dog pardon my own self. Heh, heh, heh."

[prostock69]

21. I see this for what it is

A display objecting to any pardons that Bush MAY give regarding the crimes he and is administration have committed. See, by going PUBLIC like Nadler doing and making HIS stance official for the ENTIRE WORLD to see, it puts more pressure on Bush not to issue the pardons. By doing this, it will make Bush look even more guilty if he does. We need more and more government people like Nadler to do the same a well as bloggers, news papers and average Americas like us. There is a movement here people and it's starting to snowball.

[FREEWILL56]

49. Huh?

Look more guilty? He couldn't look more guilty than he has over these 8 years? WTF? What Nadler is doing is drawing a line in the sand and telling the bully not to step over it. What's Nadler going to do, draw another line in that same sand after it is crossed? STUPID STUPID STUPID AND TOTALLY USELESS WHEN PUSH COMES TO SHOVE.

[MilesColtrane]

23. What a feel good waste of time.

[Crabby Appleton]

42. Yep

nader can resolve away, doesn't make any difference.

[aquart]

27. MY Jerry!

I'm so proud of my congressman. Today.

However, the pardon power is absolute. I don't think the law can stand.

If Bush does it, ("IF"? who am I kidding?) we will be forced to amend the constitution and that ain't easy.

[melm00se]

29. this is a grandstanding

"look at me" ploy - no teeth, no impact so why waste time on this instead of something a bit more impactful:

healthcare?
economic stimulus?
unemployment coverage extension?
housing/credit/mortgage relief?

[smiley]

31. probably, but....

should we not do anything? Crimes have been committed by members of the current administration and IMO congress is guilty by association if they do nothing to address the situation. Besides, I think we're all fooling ourselves if we think anybody in our government gives 2 shits about any of the issues you mentioned. We're all screwed.... unless you're a politician, CEO, or lobbyist.

[RufusTFirefly]

32. There's one thing almost as bad as grandstanding:

The word {sic} "impactful." It's not an actual word, you know.

Are you in marketing by any chance?

(Sorry to be snarky. Your list and your observations are excellent otherwise.)

:hi:

[tclambert]

52. Impactfulness is a snarkiless conceptuation.

[tclambert]

51. Or giving the car companies a little loan so they can, I don't know, survive.

[acmavm]

30. Done, done, done, done, done. Hagel, Nelson, and Terry. Three worthless

republicans. Well actually, two but the third votes like one.

[bowens43]

34. What a waste of time.

This resolution doesn't trump the Constitution

[rhett o rick]

36. Aren't Presidential pardons only for federal crimes? Couldn't a state go after these criminals? nm

[totodeinhere]

61. Unfortunately, no.

The Constitution gives the president unlimited power to pardon any crime, federal state or otherwise. It even gives him the power to pardon future crimes that haven't even been committed yet.

[Independent_Liberal]

37. With all due respect Rep. Nadler...

If you and Sen. Feingold are so concerned about pardons, you two should take it upon yourselves to call for impeachment hearings. This is just an empty gesture.

[Uncle Joe]

39. I agree, if they seriously want to prevent pardons, they need to file impeachment proceedings. n/t

[totodeinhere]

62. Even that could not stop him unless the Senate actually removes him from office.

And even if that happened, any pardon that he made prior to being removed would still be valid.

[Uncle Joe]

66. Article II Section 2 Paragraph 1

"The President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States when called in to actual service of the United States; he may acquire the opinion, in writing of the principle officer in each of the executive departments of any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States except in cases of impeachment"

It doesn't say conviction, just impeachment, and if he were convicted, he wouldn't be President anymore, so the question would be moot. By my understanding for so long as impeachment proceedings are active, he can't pardon anyone.

Edit for P.S. If impeachment proceedings were active until his term of office ended, they could run out the clock, whether he was convicted or not.

[totodeinhere]

72. I think that means that he cannot pardon anyone who has been impeached. It does not mean that he...

cannot issue pardons while he himself is being impeached, unless of course he tried to pardon himself.

[Uncle Joe]

84. The way I understand it, Presidential Pardons are aimed primarily at criminal offenses, impeachment

can be a hybrid used against criminal, political or gross negligence offenses. "You're doing a heckuva a job Brownie" type impeachment, basically incompetence, there is no pardon applicable here.

On the other hand, it would seem logical to me that if a President were being impeached his powers of pardon should also be curtailed as those he would or could pardon may be witnesses against him during an impeachment. He doesn't even need to use a pardon in this case, the mere fact that he/she could up until his/her term of office expires serves as an enticement to prevent other guilty parties from testifying against the President.

[704wipes]

92. Kucinich's bill to impeach Cheney

would keep Cheney from getting a pardon for that...
and if Cheney was under impeachment Bush couldn't pardon him for other crimes, resign on Jan 15, and then have Cheney pardon him for his crimes in office, right?

Because we know Barrack would never pardon Bush for anything brought on his official duties after he was out of office, right?

[DissedByBush]

73. He can do what he wants until he's removed from office

That means he can't pardon himself when up for impeachment. Otherwise, his power to pardon is ABSOLUTE while in office, the concept having been upheld by the Supreme Court.

This posturing can affect exactly nothing. Zero, zilch, nada. Daddy Bush pardoned a terrorist and a rich contributor, Clinton pardoned several terrorists and a rich contributor, and there was absolutely nothing anybody could do about it but complain.

[Uncle Joe]

85. To my knowledge the Supreme Court has never tried a case

pertaining to the power of Presidential Pardons while the President was being held under impeachment proceedings.

[DissedByBush]

91. Because it's irrelevant

"except in Cases of Impeachment"

He can't pardon in a case of impeachment, that is, he can't affect a case of impeachment. This is the first time I've ever heard it proposed that the President being under impeachment placed a blanket moratorium on his power of pardon in cases that aren't about impeachment. Otherwise, it's been held that his power is absolute, even if the person receiving the pardon doesn't want it.

Now if impeachment proceedings could be brought against all of those he may want to pardon...

[totodeinhere]

93. You pretty much summed it up.

[Mnpaul]

74. Start proceedings Jan 10

Drop them Jan 20

No pardons

[earthlite]

40. Bellweather Issue

I have great confidence in Obama but I must say prosecuting the W criminals or not is the biggest defining point on whether or not Obama will really bring change or if he will turn out like his predecessors.

[amitta]

48. He should take Hillary's Senate seat

.

[Truth Teller]

53. Nice gesture

No legal weight and not a huge deal, but at least it voices an objection and forces people to go on record if it comes to a vote.

[croton]

54. Good Idea, But...

to be fair it should be retroactive to the Clinton years. Did he ever pardon Hillary for stealing the White House silverware?

[Vidar]

60. Petition signed & thread recommended. Thank you.

[totodeinhere]

64. The only way to legally stop him from giving out pardons would be to pass a...

constitutional amendment. And there isn't time for that. Any such amendment would take months if not years to pass.

[yodoobo]

69. Played right. This could end Bush's presidency on January 20th, 2009

Well played Nadler, well played.

[Pacifist Patriot]

71. Nice sentiment, but the question isn't if Bush'll pardon folks, but who and how many.

[Mr Hedley Bowes]

75. This is lame! ITMFA!

As a 'Sense of the House' resolution, you know the B*shies are going to challenge it on grounds of 'lacking force of law'

Show some spine! ITMFA!!!

[Bleacher Creature]

76. I hope it's sternly worded!!!

[Overseas]

77. K&R -- Yes Please !! No Pardons !! //nt

[LaStrega]

78. Oh please please please please please ! k/r n/t

[chasingclouds]

81. Done

Got sent.. somehow I cant see Inhofe caring :eyes:

[many a good man]

83. Has the blanket pardon ever been challenged constitutionally?

The precedent was set insofar as it occurred, but has there ever been a court challenge that upheld it?

As long as the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on it, its constitutionality remains in question.

[Stardust]

89. Oh, what the hell, I'll sign (another fruitless petition.) Sigh...

[lxlxlxl]

90. kicking kicking kicking deserves a splash screen kicking kicking kicking

If you are panicking you waited too long...

[ohio2007]

94. Bush pardons 14 and commutes 2 prison sentences

WASHINGTON (AP) - President George W. Bush has granted pardons to 14 individuals and commuted the prison sentences of two others, The Associated Press learned Monday. The new round of White House pardons are Bush's first since March and come less than two months before he will end his presidency. The crimes committed by those on the list include drug offenses, income tax evasion, bank embezzlement and violation of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
Bush has been stingy during his time in office about handing out such reprieves.

Including these actions, he has granted a total of 171 and eight commutations. That's less than half as many as Presidents Clinton or Reagan issued during their time in office. Both were two-term presidents.

On the latest pardon list were:

_Leslie Owen Collier of Charleston, Mo.

_Milton Kirk Cordes of Rapid City, S.D.

_Richard Micheal Culpepper of Mahomet, Ill.

_Brenda Jean Dolenz-Helmer of Fort Worth, Texas.

_Andrew Foster Harley of Falls Church, Va.

_Obie Gene Helton of Rossville, Ga.

_Carey C. Hice Sr. of Travelers Rest, S.C.

_Geneva Yvonne Hogg of Jacksonville, Fla.

_William Hoyle McCright Jr. of Midland, Texas.

_Paul Julian McCurdy of Sulphur, Okla.

_Robert Earl Mohon Jr. of Grant, Ala.

_Ronald Alan Mohrhoff of Los Angeles.

_Daniel Figh Pue III of Conroe, Texas.

_Orion Lynn Vick of White Hall, Ark.

Bush also commuted the prison sentences of John Edward Forte of North Brunswick, N.J., and James Russell Harris of Detroit.

Under the Constitution, the president's power to issue pardons is absolute and cannot be overruled.

Some high-profile individuals, such as Michael Milken, are seeking a pardon on securities fraud charges. Two politicians convicted of public corruption—former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif., and four-term Democratic Louisiana Gov. Edwin W. Edwards—are asking Bush to shorten their prison terms.

One hot topic of discussion related to pardons is whether Bush might decide to issue pre-emptive pardons before he leaves office to government employees who authorized or engaged in harsh interrogations of suspected terrorists in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Some constitutional scholars and human rights groups want the incoming administration of President-elect Barack Obama to investigate possible war crimes.

If Bush were to pardon anyone involved, it would provide protection against criminal charges, particularly for people who were following orders or trying to protect the nation with their actions. But it would also be highly controversial.

At the same time, Obama advisers say there is little—if any—chance that his administration would bring criminal charges.





http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D94LJ1980&show_article=1&catnum=0

[lovuian]

95. Did ya all see this on Yahoo

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081124/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_pardons

One hot topic of discussion related to pardons is whether Bush might decide to issue pre-emptive pardons before he leaves office to government employees who authorized or engaged in harsh interrogations of suspected terrorists in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Some constitutional scholars and human rights groups want the incoming administration of President-elect Barack Obama to investigate possible war crimes.

If Bush were to pardon anyone involved, it would provide protection against criminal charges, particularly for people who were following orders or trying to protect the nation with their actions. But it would also be highly controversial.

At the same time, Obama advisers say there is little — if any — chance that his administration would bring criminal charges.

I will be interested what happens