Pardons

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Martin, Jul 7, 2007.

  1. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    In recent days I have heard commentators on the news say that Bush, and Clinton, undermined the "rule of law" when they granted pardons/commutations. This strikes me as funny since Article 2, Section 2, of the United States Constitution states:

    "and he [the president] shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment"


    Notice that the Constitution gives the President of the United States the right to pardon/reprieve those who have committed "offenses against the United States". That goes against what one commentator said on MSNBC the other day. This person, and I forgot who it was, said that pardons were for innocent people who were found guilty. Yet the Constitution, our rule of law, does not say that. It is very clear that the President of the United States has the power to reprieve/pardon those who have committed "offenses against the United States". There are no conditions, ifs, ands, or buts, added to this power.

    Therefore Bush had the right to give Libby a commutation. Congress need not hold hearings and the news commentators need to stop saying that the rule of law has been undermined. The rule of law, the United States Constitution, gives the President of the United States the right and the power to do what Bush did. Period, end of story. We don't have to like it, we don't have to agree with it, but the Constitution gives him the power to do it.

    I am not a fan of Bush, Cheney, or anyone in this administration. However we must be fair and stick with the rule of law.
     
  2. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good points Martin. Democrats investigating Republican integrity is like honor among theives. That is a two way street.

    Bush had every right to do what he did. The Clinton comparison is ridiculous. They both had the right as President to exercise that power.

    If a comparison was to be made, it would be communiting Libby and letting the two border agent languish in prison. It reflects a lack of fairness, integrity and leadership.
     
  3. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,926
    Likes Received:
    296


    Congress is grandstanding.

    This is just one of the over 300 investigations that democrats have initiated. Most are an absolute 100% waste of time, money, and effort.

    The President's Constitutional right to grant pardons and reprieves is indisputable.
     
  4. Analgesic

    Analgesic
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2007
    Messages:
    439
    Likes Received:
    0
    Correct. But it exists in the constitution precisely for those extraordinary situations where a timely pardon can be of great benefit to the United States (i.e. in war, to a defector, etc.). The fact that so many people (from whatever political persuasion) are not utterly outraged that Presidents (of whichever party) make such a liberal use of such an extraordinary power to pardon their cronies or political aides is absolutely unbelievable.
     
  5. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,926
    Likes Received:
    296
    As much as we might like for there to be, there are no strings attached to the powers granted by the Constitution to the President in this matter.

    I believe your interpretation is wishful thinking.
     
  6. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Would the Constitution limit presidential pardons to just Federal crimes?
     
  7. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    ==Where is that stated in the constitution? I can't find it. The constitution grants the President of the United States this power and only limits the power in cases of impeachment. There is nothing about "extraordinary situations" mentioned/implied.

    ==I am more outraged that the prosecutor in this case spent all of our money and obstruction of justice is the best he could come up with. He should be thrown in jail to pay back the American people. I am even more outraged that our political leaders live like kings/queens while they send our soldiers to war. They throw millions of dollars away on useless projects while small communities lose their hospitals because there is not enough money to keep these small hospitals open. They also refuse to protect our borders. So I have much more important things to be outraged about then a president doing what the constitution allows him to do.
     
  8. hillclimber1

    hillclimber1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Messages:
    2,447
    Likes Received:
    0
    Clear, concise, and right on the money.
     
  9. hillclimber1

    hillclimber1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Messages:
    2,447
    Likes Received:
    0
    I guess it depends on your political outlook. I think the President fell short, by not issuing a full pardon. This prosecution (sadly) was a political maneuver most despicable.
     

Share This Page

Loading...