Cyrano
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-10-06 11:48 AM
Original message |
Constitutional amendment needed to limit president's pardoning power. |
|
Edited on Fri Feb-10-06 11:50 AM by Cyrano
The constitution sets no limits on the president's right to issue pardons. This means that Dick Cheney could murder Cindy Sheehan on TV, and walk away scott free with a pardon from Bush.
I suspect that if it were not for the president's right to pardon, many of the criminals in this administration (and others in past administrations) would not be so quick to do their master's bidding. Yet every one of Bush's thugs believe they'll receive a pardon no matter what they do.
When/If the Democrats ever gain control of the congress, they need to introduce a constitutional amendment limiting the president's pardoning power, without doing away with it completely. (During the Civil War, Lincoln used it compassionately to pardon many soldiers who had been sentenced to execution.)
I don't know exactly what limits should be set, but no one person should possess that much power. Any suggestions?
|
Sammy Pepys
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-10-06 11:52 AM
Response to Original message |
1. They've been offered up before by Congress... |
|
Don't know where they disappeared to though.
|
Cyrano
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-10-06 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. After what's happened the past five years, I don't think |
|
the idea of an amendment would disappear so quickly.
|
Devlzown
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-10-06 11:57 AM
Response to Original message |
3. There was some talk about that after Clinton |
|
pardoned all those people just before he left office. I guess they didn't want to take away any powers from an incoming Republican administration.
|
rpgamerd00d
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-10-06 11:58 AM
Response to Original message |
|
Pardons require approval by Senate in a 2/3 vote.
|
RaleighNCDUer
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-10-06 12:01 PM
Response to Original message |
5. Limit the presidential pardons to anyone |
|
that is not a member of his same administration who commits any crime that has no political ramifications for his administration or his party.
If a later president wants to pardon for political crimes of a previous administration, fine. But he would draw a lot of attention for doing so.
By 'same administration', that would include, for instance, Bush1 pardoning Iran/Contra criminals who were convicted while he was VP. Bush2 could have pardoned them, but then it might look funny, taking them straight out of prison into his administration.
|
yurbud
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-10-06 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
10. like Abrams and Poindexter |
rock
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-10-06 12:01 PM
Response to Original message |
6. "Dick Cheney could murder Cindy Sheehan..." |
|
The presidential pardon only works for federal laws. State law still applies. Just a point to try to keep the rhetoric down.
|
Cyrano
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-10-06 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
11. Okay, Washington D.C. is not a state, so |
|
conceivably Cheney could do it there.
The rhetoric was intended to make a point about the extent of the power to pardon.
|
yurbud
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-10-06 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
14. Cheney couldn't do it personally unless he stabbed her with his beak (PIC) |
Nye Bevan
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-10-06 12:02 PM
Original message |
Presential pardons should simply be abolished |
|
They are an ananchronistic throwback to the days of the supreme power of the English monarch.
|
yurbud
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-10-06 12:04 PM
Response to Original message |
9. have there been any good ones at presidential level? |
Nye Bevan
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-10-06 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
|
can anyone here give an example of a terrible wrong that was righted by a presidential pardon? An innocent person who slipped through the cracks?
|
Nye Bevan
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-10-06 12:02 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Edited on Fri Feb-10-06 12:02 PM by MathGuy
|
yurbud
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-10-06 12:03 PM
Response to Original message |
8. how about he can't pardon anyone who has worked for him |
|
or use a pardon in a way that could be considered an obstruction of justice.
|
Lerkfish
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-10-06 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
12. I was going to say similar: no pardons for crimes the WH is involved in. |
|
there's no reason a crime that involves the pardoner should be allowed to be pardoned. Nixon should have never been pardoned, in my view, but the same office where he committed the crimes.
|
KharmaTrain
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-10-06 12:14 PM
Response to Original message |
13. Let 'Em Pardon...This Will Hurt For Longer |
|
I still hear the hyenas howl about Marc Rich and how that's "tainted" Clinton's legacy. Ford still reeks from letting Nixon off the hook. IMHO, had Nixon gone to trial, he would have destroyed the Repugnican party, Ford was forced to cut the losses...and it cost him in '76 but made Raygun and what followed possible.
Any pardons that come out of these scandals will be judged against the weight of those scandals. Meaning, if this asshat ends up pardoning 40 or 80 of his own partisans...that will be hurt not only asshat's "legacy", but the party as well. The only thing that will mute the outrage of people walking free from obvious crimes will be overall booosh and Repugnican fatigue...people will be tired of hearing about this regime and its scandals and just want the whole mess out of sight, out of mind.
While this regime can pardon itself for its abuses, it's not immune from international laws and the crimes that its committed. Those will have to be addressed at one time for a final resolution of Iraq to occur...and I suspect it will. How long that will take is open to conjecture, but I believe there will be a time this regime will have to stand up to its crimes in the Hague and not have the power to intimidate it once had...justice will then follow.
Lastly, there is a benefit of the power to pardon. It can and has been used to right some political or judicial wrongs. There needs to be constraints on how this power is used...and I think this can be done through Congressional resolution. A total ban on pardon power would start quite a Constitutional fight then, would be a partisan battle in getting through the states.
Politically, any pardons in light of the size and scope of the scandals now being unravaled are political dynamite for the Repugnicans. It will come to a time (my hopes are after November, 2008), when they finally have to fess up to their messes and really clean house, but until then, the slow drip, drip, drip, drip helps Democrats and any wholescale pardons will just increase that tilt.
Peace...
|
bigmonkey
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Feb-10-06 12:47 PM
Response to Original message |
15. No pardons for unconvicted criminals. |
|
Edited on Fri Feb-10-06 12:48 PM by bigmonkey
I agree with the no pardons for employees of that president's administration, including the president himself. But also, the pardon _must_ be clarified to only be possible for a person convicted of a crime. Ford pardoned Nixon pre-emptively, so that there was no trial. Bush1 pardoned Weinberger pre-emptively to avoid a trial that likely would have implicated him. Pardons only for the convicted. Nothing else makes sense, and this pre-emptive pardon has already caused a lot of mayhem.
(edited for spelling)
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Apr 25th 2024, 11:34 PM
Response to Original message |