End Presidential Pardons and Clemency

[formercia]

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0812/S00184.htm

End Presidential Pardons and Clemency
Wednesday, 10 December 2008, 10:02 am
Column: Michael Collins



An Amendment -

The president shall not have the right to
grant pardons or clemency.

Michael Collins
"Scoop" Independent News

(Wash. DC) The prospect of the criminal in chief, George W. Bush, issuing pardons to his co-conspirators is repugnant to all citizens who've paid any degree of attention over the last eight years.
He neglected his duty prior to 911 resulting in a devastating attack on the nation.

He started an illegal war based on lies that caused injury and death to tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers and the deaths of over 1.2 million Iraqi civilians.

He ordered the illegal wire tapping of citizens, a clear violation of law.

He stopped scientific research causing the suffering unto death of those with illness and injury that could have been healed during his term.

The list goes on. Bush ruled like a tyrant with the wisdom of an adolescent sociopath.
--snip--

Another great and well referenced read from autorank.

[nebenaube]

1. no, just impeach him!

[formercia]

2. The spineless jellyfish in Congress would rather he pardon them

to spare them the shame of people seeing what a scornworthy herd of lickspittle excuses for human beings they really are.

[yurbud]

45. they've gone a bit further--they've made his crimes legal retroactively

[autorank]

3. formercia, Thanks!!!!

It's time to stop imitating the middle ages and the power of the lord of whatever.

We're a free people and it's time we act like it. All citizens are equal under the law.

:)

[formercia]

8. My pleasure.

:hi:

[EFerrari]

4. Mike is right but it will be an uphill battle. The co-conspirators in Congress

don't want to derail their gravy train.

[formercia]

6. Ding, Ding!!!

They're too heavily invested in the Military-Industrial Complex. A lot of people got on board with the War Express thinking they might make a nice nest egg for their retirement. Unfortunately, it colors their judgment, and frankly, I think many are worried that they might be judged themselves if they open that Pandora's Box.

[mod mom]

15. Yep, many need the coverage for their actions.

:mad:

[dsc]

5. that is a horrible idea

Miscarriages of justice occur and sometimes only an executive pardon can fix them. To take one example. If you are an innocent person on federal death row right now and your case has already been appealed once, the only way, the one and only way, you can be removed from death row is an executive pardon. SCOTUS won't hear your appeal simply on grounds of innocence.

[Joe Chi Minh]

7. You totally miss the point. This is not about miscarriages of justice.

It's about pardoning - as a tradition(!) - a continuous production line of criminals, who are/were 100% morally culpable - the only circumstance in whch such pardons are granted by the sovereign in the UK. I'm not sure any such person ever had royal connections, never mind political ones!

[dsc]

9. the executive pardon is the last defence against a rogue prosecutor

and as such, needs to continue to exist.

[Joe Chi Minh]

21. You're still missing the point. And you purport to be a Christian. What is

it about the ordinary accountability under the law to which the rest of the population is subject (or "should be subject", in the case of Republicans with "connections"), that you don't understand?

No-one is disputing the need to retain such a safeguard. The point, however, is that it should not be a routine "perk" of the office of President, with a view to repaying past "kindnesses" on the part of serious criminals who have been justly convicted, because said Presidents have received financial assistance from them for their campaigns or for any other reason. A connection with the President or his political party should immediately raise a red flag, as to its appropriateness.

There must be other recourses for remedying proven miscarriages of justice, as there are in other countries - and I'm sure there are in yours (unless you're poor). In the UK, the royal pardon is only granted where the moral responsibility of the convicted person was not incurred.

On the other hand, in the US, simply being in the same vehicle as a bank robber, while totally ignorant and innocent of what was being perpetrated, incurs the same criminal liability, apparently. So you have mega-villains pardoned by presidents, in return for helping them financially, pardoned for their crimes, about which their guilt is not in question.

On the other hand, you have Joe or Jane Public incurring the fullest sanctions of the criminal law for a crime of the greatest magnitude, about which they had no knowledge, still less gave their acquiescence.

[dsc]

26. that is not what the article says

It says plainly and clearly and in utterly unambiguous language that the power should be eliminated. Eliminated means, in clear words, gone. If the writer were to get his way no future President could ever pardon anyone for any thing.

[Joe Chi Minh]

37. Well, firstly, other countries use other means, doubtless, at least as

effective, if not more so, in order to effect a pardoning of innocently-convicted people. In fact, the very word, "pardon", suggests actual guilt, when the cases concerned involve only formal guilt, so that a simple quashing of the verdict would be the only truly appropriate measure for dealing with miscarriages of justice.

"If the writer were to get his way no future President could ever pardon anyone for any thing." Who on earth is a politician to pardon anyone. There should be courts dealing with miscarriages of justice. It simply besmirches the office of President to invite them to pardon the guilty, because they were useful political cronies.

Have you no sense justice? Are the guilty to be treated in the same way as the innocent, simply on the say-so of a grateful, if in this regard at least, palpably shameless, President? The legal system is wretched enough as it is, without stripping it of the last vestige of decency.

[dsc]

40. newsflash

judges are politicians in most states and even the appointed ones often got there by being those dreaded politicians. The fact is judges are quite rightly proscribed from just overturning verdicts willy-nilly. There are strict limits and now even stricter ones. For people who are unjustly convicted but whose trials were fair, there is often no other route than executive clemency. Juries do make mistakes. One good example was in a film I watched last night. Harvey Milk's and George Muscone's killer got manslaughter due to the jury not caring about gays. Admittedly this is the other way but the reverse has happened to minorities over time.

[Joe Chi Minh]

41. Stop press! Once again it's a problem caused by Republicans and you

go along with it condoning bad law to remedy it. It happens that though they may be political appointees, only this Administration is so corrupt as to make it a major issue. Normally, an effort is made not to twist the law in a partisan way.

Overturning verdicts willy-nilly? Make up your mind. I thought you were talking about miscarriages of justice. One strawman after another. Have you no shame?

But if you want to give your presidents a royal prerogative, oblivious of the now manifest danger of "giving them ideas", well... God couldn't stop the Jewish people wanting a king. But it doesn't eally matter anyway.



You know in China, the Communist Party Chairman doesn't pardon major white-collar criminals. He has them executed. If that happened in the US, wouldn't the Republican Party vanish virtually overnight? And wouldn't the ranks of the rump of the Republican Party, the other Have Yachts, be decimated, even more than at present? Doubtless, some of the Beltway Democrats with them.

Now. Once again, although more clearly, I am going to put a question ot you. Don't bother to post, if you don't want to answer it.
DO YOU WANT PRESIDENTS TO BE ABLE TO PAY BACK THE CRIMINAL INDIVIDULAS AMONG THEIR FINANCIAL SUPPORTERS BY PARDONING THEM FOR THEIR CRIMES, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE JUSTICE OF THE VERDICTS AGAINST THEM? OR DO YOU WANT THAT POWER TO BE TAKEN AWAY FROM PRESIDENTS.

[FiveGoodMen]

42. WHILE eliminating the pardon, we could simultaneously change the rules for judicial review

couldn't we?

[cstanleytech]

44. And exactly how many times have U.S. presidents had to step in to issue a pardon

for that reason exactly?
We need a change to the system, in my opinion a far more fair way would be for our government to pick 3 US SCOTUS members, 3 members of congress and 3 senators via a random lottery once a year and all of them meet every so often to hear pardons and nominate them to go to the president and then from those and only those ones may the president decide which to pardon.
That would prevent any potential abuse by any sitting president and it gives oversight to the process.

[autorank]

11. What miscarriages have been righted by this anachronistic power?

Nixon? Mark Rich?

is this worth giving the president, any president, arbitrary power to free the guilty! That's what
they do. It's like an auction.

There is a better working alternative FOR JUSTICE, however, one I should have mentioned. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) is an independent arm of the judiciary that reviews controversial cases. Their job is to investigate a conviction with questions outstanding. The SCCRC even took on Lockerbie with stunning results. (See Link )

It's always a very good idea to eliminate arbitrary prerogatives for the executive(s).

[dsc]

12. one off the top of my head

VietNam draft evaders were given a pardon by Carter.

[autorank]

14. That's the last one I can remember, and it was superb.

But the list of scoundrels is amazing. IMHO, it's about taking powers away that can be abused.

The routine violation of the power to declare war (of any type) is a bigger scandals. It says
clearly, "congress shall have the power ..." to make war. How can the president get away with doing it so frequently?

We need a bunch of amendments. "Congress and the Judiciary shall read and study the Constitution on a regular basis and be proficient in its application to legislative and legal matters. The shall be required to pass a test on the Constitution semiannually. Failing results in a loss of their vote in the case of legislators or their place on the bench in the case of judges." These people are out of hand.

[Joe Chi Minh]

23. Your replies are truly shocking. An amnesty is quite a different animal from

a presidential pardon, and your inability to differentiate is disturbing. With amnesties, there is no question of self-interest on the President's part. You appear to subscribe to the Christian faith, so it's difficult to know where else to point you.

I mean how can you blithely adduce refusal on the part of SCOTUS to consider innocence as the basis for a pardon, as a rationale for defending essentially corrupt presidential pardons; instead of understanding that the failure of SCOTUS to consider an individual's innocence as a binding basis for granting a pardon, is a far more egregious offence against even natural justice, than it is a reason for allowing a President "carte blanche" to pardon his criminal cronies! There is an absolute, moral imperative to remedy the former, and zero justification for the latter.

[dsc]

27. Governor Celeste, of Ohio, pardoned several women who had been

abused by their husbands and then convicted of their murders before the battered spouse syndrome became a known defense. I can't find a link now but will later. They would still be in jail today but for his action.

[Joe Chi Minh]

35. You still obstinately refuse to acknowledge the whole point of this trhead.

I've just RE-iterated in my last post, that pardons are excellent for miscarriages of justice - where the party concerned is not morally responsible. If a woman premeditatedly stabs her brutal, sh*t of a husband, when he's flaked out in a drunken stupor, as the most elementary measure of self-defence, how can she be to blame?

Even in the US now, vicious killers can be released after two or three decades, if not less, into the community, possibly to wreak their revenge on their ersthwile victim. Do you have a problem with that? I certainly don't.

GET IT INTO YOUR THICK SKULL ONCE AND FOR ALL. It is the presidential pardons of cronies who have rendered political assistance to him, that everyone wants stopped. Somehow, I don't think all those deserting Vietnam servicemen were granted an amnesty by President Carter, in return for financial favours to his political campaigns. Just stop posting on here if you can't address plain and reiterated issues. You MUST be a troll.

I see it was struggle4sanity who was respnsible for those strawmen. Two of you!

[dsc]

36. No the author of the piece is

and your apparent inability to read. The article clearly states that the power to pardon should be abolished. Not limited, not changed, not given to other people, but eliminated. The case I mentioned, the women were tried and convicted of murder before the abused wife defense was used and thus were incapable of using it. The one and only way out that they had was Celeste pardoning them, which he did.

[Joe Chi Minh]

38. So, YET AGAIN, you use bad law as an excuse for another bad law, because

at the time it was a blessing!

".... before the abused wife defense was used and thus were incapable of using it."

As you have clearly noticed, things have moved on a bit since then; and as a matter of fact, as I've repeatedy, but ever vainly tried to get through to you, I don't give tuppence about that bill. The methodology is a detail. What is the ONLY ISSUE is that Presidents should not be empowered to bring the law and the very office of the presidency into disrepute, by "pardoning" his criminal cronies.

You see (or rather don't), presidents can't "quash" just and lawful verdicts; they can only "pardon" the perpetrators of crimes.

In their primitive little minds, the legal eagles concerned with cases of spousal abuse think that if they exonerate the victims of such ongoing violence, it will encourage the law to be held in greater contempt than it normally is. The best justice money can buy is something more than a "bon mot". But the for presidents to hallow it is absolutely unconscionable, not least, in a country where the young are brougth up to look up to the President as a demi-god.

In All CASES OF MISCARRIAGES OF JUSTICE, the verdicts should be quashed, and the victims - which is what they MUST BE - wholly EXONERATED.

In Christian theology, a distinction is made between formal and actual sin, and so it should in civil society in relation to crimes. (only crimes consciously committed, not under duress and other than in self-defence should be viewed as "actual" crimes);

Read the following, "Ten Most notorious Presidential Pardons" I haven't. I'd rather not. I'm hoping it will awaken a twinge of concern n your conscience.

http://www.time.com/time/2007/presidential_pardons/10.html

[struggle4progress]

33. Proclamation 4483 - Presidential Proclamation of Pardon

GRANTING PARDON FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT,
AUGUST 4, 1964 TO MARCH 28, 1973

By the President of the United States of America

A Proclamation

Acting pursuant to the grant of authority in Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution of the United States, I, Jimmy Carter, President of the United States, do hereby grant a full, complete and unconditional pardon to: (1) all persons who may have committed any offense between August 4, 1964 and March 28, 1973 in violation of the Military Selective Service Act or any rule or regulation promulgated thereunder; and (2) all persons heretofore convicted, irrespective of the date of conviction, of any offense committed between August 4, 1964 and March 28, 1973 in violation of the Military Selective Service Act, or any rule or regulation promulgated thereunder, restoring to them full political, civil and other rights.

This pardon does not apply to the following who are specifically excluded therefrom:

(1) All persons convicted of or who may have committed any offense in violation of the Military Selective Service Act, or any rule or regulation promulgated thereunder, involving force or violence; and

(2) All persons convicted of or who may have committed any offense in violation of the Military Selective Service Act, or any rule or regulation promulgated thereunder, in connection with duties or responsibilities arising out of employment as agents, officers or employees of the Military Selective Service system.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 21st day of January, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and seventy-seven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and first.

JIMMY CARTER

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=7255

[struggle4progress]

34. Eugene Debs imprisonment for antiwar activity during WWI? The treason

conviction of so-called "Tokyo Rose" based on false testimony? The commutation of Patty Hearst's sentence? Truman's commutation of the death sentence for his would-be assassin Collazo?

[Hubert Flottz]

10. Hitler would have loved to have been able to pardon his crew too

The Indictments

Count One: Conspiracy to Wage Aggressive War

Count Two: Waging Aggressive War, or "Crimes Against Peace"

Count Three: War Crimes

Count Four: Crimes Against Humanity

http://history1900s.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.courttv.com%2Fcasefiles%2Fnuremberg%2Findictments.html

Nuremberg Trial

http://history1900s.about.com/cs/nurembergtrial/

What ever happened to the "Rule Of Law"????????

[autorank]

13. The "Rule of Law" has left the building

There will be no end to the b.s. if Bush walks. How will anybody take us seriously? How will wee take ourselves seriously?

Exposing the Bush crimes in detail is a baseline requirement for a viable nation, that's how bad this guy has been.

I think any decent president would be relieved to get unyoked of this absurd burden.

Thanks for the additional context and history!!!

[Hubert Flottz]

17. The "Rule Of Law" in EXXONian Times...

O J Simpson was convicted the other day, simply because he couldn't afford to hire another "dream team" this time.

The world is watching, but I don't think the folks in Washington can see past their pocketbooks.

"TRUST" is extinct in EXXONia and without that we are up shit creek without any meaningful means of propulsion whatsoever. Adrift and out of control with no adult supervison. Greed is at the tiller and we are about to reach the class VXXXIII-XLCH endless shoal at clustercrap point.

"YES WE CAN" crash and burn, just exactly like the ROMANS did, if we don't get it right and get it right ASAP.

Heil to the Thief...err...Chief!

[Festivito]

16. Can any state start impeachment and thereby STOP PARDONS?

I'm thinking that we need to start impeachment around Pelosi's desire to stay in a bad course.

[truedelphi]

25. I think that we the people can do this. And should do this. Not sure if it can be

done in the sme fshion that an Amendment to the Constitution is handled or not.

Probably Jonathan Turley would know about this.

[BeFree]

18. Hell yeah

A commission should be in charge of pardons. Allowing one person to decide these cases is an injustice and underminds the whole judicial system.

[ihavenobias]

19. It's funny you brought this up

I was just discussing this issue with my GF the other day, and she just didn't understand why it made sense for the president to have this power. To be honest I didn't really have a good explanation myself, but now I can share this.

[formercia]

22. An artifact of Monarchy

The mindset of the Founding Fathers was derived from living under the Monarchy. There were courts at the time, but they were subject to interference from the King's Men. If one could not find justice in the court, then it was up to the King to rectify that if he chose.
As we have seen in recent History, there is still interference from the 'kings men', but the legal system we have today has many more checks and balances than the courts of King George III's day. Ironic, isn't it? Again, we deal with King George 'da Turd and contemplate Revolution.

[Me.]

20. Pardon Me

Oops. can't be done, my bank account has just been emptied by the financial wizards and I have no political favors to give, guess I'd be out of luck.

On another note, when * started saying he had political capital to spend his admin started unraveling. I though at the time he had finally flown too close to the sun. The other day he made a joke about his hanging and the LA Times headline was something to the effect of "Bush Gets Hung". A portent? Just saying.

[autorank]

31. Who pardon's the pardoner

The nest pardoner but I'm not sure that would happen. I think * just has to face the music and
try to live with the voices in his head. To think that he can dispense pardons and, even more
ironic, clemency, is just mind blowing.

But then again, what isn't these daze;)

[Me.]

32. We Could Be Getting Into One Of Those Infinity Things

Because as much as he'd like to think so, he's not the final word.

[struggle4progress]

24. Don't eliminate it but restrict it:

(1) Require each pardon to specify the one particular offense covered
(2) Require all pardons to be published at least 6 months before the end of a presidential term, and allow congress to establish reporting criteria
(3) Forbid a president from pardoning any person, for an offense committed during that president's administration, or during a prior administration in which that president and that person both served

The point of (1) is to eliminate sweeping language such as "all crimes committed": if the President wants to pardon someone for 10,000 specific crimes, let him sign 10,000 pardons

(2) aims to avoid last minute, lame-duck, or secret pardons for which the public has no recourse at the ballot box

A restriction such as (3) would limit the possibility that the pardon authority was improperly used to shield cronies from the consequences of their criminal acts

[autorank]

30. Those are very good points

The six months provision is astute and also punitive;)

I'd thought about restrictions and also equity relating to pardonsb. Have the pardons reviewed by a retired justice panel, 9 or so, to verify that it's a clear miscarriage of justice and that there's a prima facie case offered showing this (as opposed to retrying the case). The prez would need to show miscarriage backed up with with facts, not a stroke of a pen. Assure that any pardons for an individual due to an unfair law (like 5 years for possession of pot)transformed automatically into pardons for all members of the class of individuals subject to those penalties.

Basically, I think you can take away the regal trappings, which are so offensive and, ultimately harmful, and achieve your goals and mine and with something like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Criminal_Cases_Review_Commission

These folks took on the Lockerbie conviction and did it with gusto. They're smart, clear thinking jurists with a mission. They operate all year round. H

[bleever]

28. "That England that was wont to conquer others Hath made a shameful conquest of itself"

K&R!

[autorank]

29. Great line

Isn't it? It's really a viscous too since it's been interpreted to imply incest on one level.

Where's our Shakespeare? Although Gore Vidal isn't bad;)

[AtomicKitten]

39. "Bush ruled like a tyrant with the wisdom of an adolescent sociopath."

I get the impression Obama is interested in documenting the crimes of the Bush Admin but I don't think he has the stomach to prosecute anyone. If the Idiot Boy King is successful in preemptively pardoning all concerned, that may be an academic point rendered moot.

:(

K&R

[FogerRox]

43. Pardons process was once a good idea, now totally freaking outta control

Kickin...