Stonesipher

With all this talk....

Rate this topic

25 posts in this topic

24 minutes ago, Stonesipher said:

With all this talk of a pres being able to pardon himself who of you think this is a good provision for our government and who thinks this should not be an option.

 

 

Article II.

Section 2.

"The President...shall have power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

 

Can a president  apply their pardon power to their own "Offences against the United States" (federal offenses)?

What does  "except in Cases of Impeachment" imply as to the answer?

I think that a president should not have the option of applying their Pardon Power to themselves for the reason that if they do it invites abuse of executive-branch  power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Stonesipher said:

How about you pretend that Hillery got elected. Do you have an opinion now?

Yes, she's gonna be sorry that Obama didn't pardon her with the other dirtbags.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, lichum said:

 

 

Article II.

Section 2.

"The President...shall have power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

 

Can a president  apply their pardon power to their own "Offences against the United States" (federal offenses)?

What does  "except in Cases of Impeachment" imply as to the answer?

I think that a president should not have the option of applying their Pardon Power to themselves for the reason that if they do it invites abuse of executive-branch  power.

I think the founders would flip out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, epanzella said:

Don't you have to do something before you get pardoned???

 

I think that a  president may pardon a person today for offenses they have already committed that as of today have not been revealed.

A  president's issuance of a pardon "carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it."

 

 

 

 

Supreme Court of the United States

 

 

 

BURDICK v. U S  (1915)

 

 

 

 

This brings us to the differences between legislative immunity and a pardon.

 

They are substantial.

 

The latter carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it.

 

The former has no such imputation or confession.

 

It is tantamount to the silence of the witness.

 

It is noncommittal.

 

It is the unobtrusive act of the law given protection against a sinister use of his testimony, not like a pardon, requiring him to confess his guilt in order to avoid a conviction of it.

Edited by lichum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, lichum said:

 

I think that a  president may pardon a person today for offenses they have already committed that as of today have not been revealed.

A  president's issuance of a pardon "carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it."

 

 

 

 

Supreme Court of the United States

 

 

 

BURDICK v. U S  (1915)

 

 

 

 

This brings us to the differences between legislative immunity and a pardon.

 

They are substantial.

 

The latter carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it.

 

The former has no such imputation or confession.

 

It is tantamount to the silence of the witness.

 

It is noncommittal.

 

It is the unobtrusive act of the law given protection against a sinister use of his testimony, not like a pardon, requiring him to confess his guilt in order to avoid a conviction of it.

Under Ex parte Garland,  the Pardon Power   does apply    to offenses that have not yet come to light.

 

U.S. Supreme Court

Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. 4 Wall. 333 333 (1866)

Ex parte Garland

71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 333

 

Syllabus


9. The power of pardon conferred by the Constitution upon the President is unlimited except in cases of impeachment. It extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment. The power is not subject to legislative control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That being so, the President could not pardon anyone for anything that has not yet "come to light."  Since the President insists that nothing happened, and his followers are keen to agree, there can be no pardons. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, patchyfog said:

I think the founders would flip out.

 

The Founders and the Framers feared  concentrations of power.

I think the Founders and the Framers would be repulsed  by a president who applied their Pardon Power to themselves.

If a president pardons himself  has he committed an impeachable abuse of power?

I think so.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Appears with one mention of pardoning himself, Trump has the country dancing the Minuet.  For those who don't know the dance is performed with a figure 8 pattern, followed by a Z pattern, to keep the dancers looking in all directions.  The term was also used in Vietnam to describe a three sided ambush, so no matter which way the enemy turned he was always taking fire from the rear.  Seems that is what Trump is doing to the MSM and the ruling class.

For the past three days that is all that is being discussed, is it legal, great legal minds on each side debate it. Bills are being introduced to stop it.  And Trump laughs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.