Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It is something that is a giant anachronism to our system. I’ve never understood why it is there to start with.
Good post.
It is part of the checks and balances system, giving the executive an override of both the judiciary and the legislature in specific instances.
Before trying to get rid of it, first people should try to see what would happen if it was removed.
It would make the Judiciary supreme over the executive in all situations.
The executive check on the judiciary already exist in the Presidential power to nominated judges.
but after they are on the bench??
martybegan set me straight on that. He won, I lost. However, I still think the principle of the impeachment—to where one person can set aside the work of a jury and potentially appellate judges does violence to our judicial system. I mean, it will never happen but theoretically the next president could free every federal prisoner without retribution, without debate, without any input from the other two branches. It, in and of it self, seems like an unchecked power. But, hey, our system also allows one senator to bring legislation to a grinding halt…. So there are a lot of rules that we have that do not favor the old “majority rules” edict. Again, Marty set me straight on this.
So can Trump pardon anyone who may be tempted to testify against him?It is something that is a giant anachronism to our system. I’ve never understood why it is there to start with.
Good post.
It is part of the checks and balances system, giving the executive an override of both the judiciary and the legislature in specific instances.
Before trying to get rid of it, first people should try to see what would happen if it was removed.
It would make the Judiciary supreme over the executive in all situations.
So can Trump pardon anyone who may be tempted to testify against him?It is something that is a giant anachronism to our system. I’ve never understood why it is there to start with.
Good post.
It is part of the checks and balances system, giving the executive an override of both the judiciary and the legislature in specific instances.
Before trying to get rid of it, first people should try to see what would happen if it was removed.
It would make the Judiciary supreme over the executive in all situations.
Yes. That is the answer; as distasteful and as repugnant to the judicial system as it is.
It’s been said by laymen and scholars alike….we get the government we deserve. So we have a President who looks to Kim Kardashin (sp?) for input on prison reform, convinced his followers that he can make a foreign government pay for something he wants to build here and…possibly most baffling…was elected to the highest political office in the land without any political experience outside of tweeting about politics.
Would it really surprise anyone if there are platoons of pardons issued? Not me.
it's a check over the Judicial System, however Congress's check on the Executive gives them the power to investigate 'abuses of power' and ultimately the power to impeach, for things that are not against the law, but the abuse of it.It is something that is a giant anachronism to our system. I’ve never understood why it is there to start with.
Good post.
It is part of the checks and balances system, giving the executive an override of both the judiciary and the legislature in specific instances.
Before trying to get rid of it, first people should try to see what would happen if it was removed.
It would make the Judiciary supreme over the executive in all situations.
Governors & presidents too often get carried away with this crap. Trump seems to be no different.
it would require constitutional amendments at the State and Federal levels.
good luck with that.
That's the thing. Many of the things they do is irritating, but is this really a problem as big as the effort required to solve it?
The founders owned slaves. That is FAR WORSE than ANYTHING trump has ever done.Governors & presidents too often get carried away with this crap. Trump seems to be no different.
There is a HUGE Difference between who obongo pardoned
and what Trump is doing…
Trump is righting wrongs whereas obongo
was pardoning TERRORIST like himself, and unlike obongo,
Trump is doing it in the middle of his “FIRST TERM”
instead of his last days in office….
FLASHBACK: Obama Pardoned Terrorist FALN Leader Oscar Lopez Rivera
trump is signaling his accomplices that he has pardon power. The founders never thought a Criminal would be in the oval office.
Go cry in a corner now idiot
So can Trump pardon anyone who may be tempted to testify against him?It is something that is a giant anachronism to our system. I’ve never understood why it is there to start with.
Good post.
It is part of the checks and balances system, giving the executive an override of both the judiciary and the legislature in specific instances.
Before trying to get rid of it, first people should try to see what would happen if it was removed.
It would make the Judiciary supreme over the executive in all situations.
Yes. That is the answer; as distasteful and as repugnant to the judicial system as it is.
It’s been said by laymen and scholars alike….we get the government we deserve. So we have a President who looks to Kim Kardashin (sp?) for input on prison reform, convinced his followers that he can make a foreign government pay for something he wants to build here and…possibly most baffling…was elected to the highest political office in the land without any political experience outside of tweeting about politics.
Would it really surprise anyone if there are platoons of pardons issued? Not me.
So all of a sudden getting input from celebrities is a bad thing?
Wow, things change so much when it's not a Democrat in the Oval office....
Impossible.Obstruction of Justice is the crime.The only guilty pleas were to unrelated crimes.$12 million dollars in direct costs.....untold amounts of wasted resources and expense.....and they still have no evidence of any Russian Collusion.
As long as the investigation continues you libs figure there's something to it.
But the moment it ends all of your hopes and dreams go up in smoke.
So what we have is an investigation that was started illegally over no crime according to federal statutes.....and all of it is only intended to keep guilty parties (Hillary and Obama and their administration) from being indicted for treason and espionage, as well as a long list of other crimes against the Constitution.
Again, you should tour with this material. Take Roseanne and Cosmo Kramer with you…birds of the feather.
So we have guilty pleas to no crimes? A new precedent in out legal system ladies and gentlemen!!!!
Hey, we also got the Ben-gotcha standard…this can and should go on for years.
Except Captain Mueller has already indicted several of the henchmen that private shin-splints enlisted as his Russian go-betweens.
More on the way.
The only thing that matters is that the truth is uncovered right? And we should give director Mueller as much time as he needs.
You do want the truth to come out…right?
Rhetorical question…you don’t need to try to find some integrity to answer
The only reason they plead guilty was because Bob Mueller was threatening to charge them with more serious crimes.
They did the same thing to Dinesh De Souza.
It's a normal tactic when you're trying to flip witnesses and get them to testify against a prime target.
However, the so-called crime they're investigating is obstruction......problem with that is there is no crime to obstruct because collusion isn't illegal.
Obstruction of Justice does not depend I'm whether there was a crime. The trump cam be obstructing justice even if there is ultimately no crime being investigating.
There is no crime to obstruct justice over. The investigation was based off of a lie.
Mueller's investigation is based off of false pretenses.
The creation of the special council was illegal to begin with.
And no sitting president can be indicted.
That's the law.
All of this is an attempt by the Democrats to take back Congress and impeach Trump over false charges.
If they are successful there will be alot of Democrats that will pay a massive price for their criminal acts.
The founders owned slaves. That is FAR WORSE than ANYTHING trump has ever done.Governors & presidents too often get carried away with this crap. Trump seems to be no different.
There is a HUGE Difference between who obongo pardoned
and what Trump is doing…
Trump is righting wrongs whereas obongo
was pardoning TERRORIST like himself, and unlike obongo,
Trump is doing it in the middle of his “FIRST TERM”
instead of his last days in office….
FLASHBACK: Obama Pardoned Terrorist FALN Leader Oscar Lopez Rivera
trump is signaling his accomplices that he has pardon power. The founders never thought a Criminal would be in the oval office.
Go cry in a corner now idiot
That's not what he said.The founders owned slaves. That is FAR WORSE than ANYTHING trump has ever done.Governors & presidents too often get carried away with this crap. Trump seems to be no different.
There is a HUGE Difference between who obongo pardoned
and what Trump is doing…
Trump is righting wrongs whereas obongo
was pardoning TERRORIST like himself, and unlike obongo,
Trump is doing it in the middle of his “FIRST TERM”
instead of his last days in office….
FLASHBACK: Obama Pardoned Terrorist FALN Leader Oscar Lopez Rivera
trump is signaling his accomplices that he has pardon power. The founders never thought a Criminal would be in the oval office.
Go cry in a corner now idiot
Well Trump hasn't yet, just wait. Giuliani said today Trump is not reliable enough to testify, well if that's the case is he reliable enough to be President?
they couldn't pass a law without the signature of the president or a veto over ride.... and there are legal and standard measures to take, like law suits by we the people or States, to sue if a federal law is suspected of being unconstitutional....that's usually not a president making that determination..... it is the job of the judicial branch.it's a check over the Judicial System, however Congress's check on the Executive gives them the power to investigate 'abuses of power' and ultimately the power to impeach, for things that are not against the law, but the abuse of it.It is something that is a giant anachronism to our system. I’ve never understood why it is there to start with.
Good post.
It is part of the checks and balances system, giving the executive an override of both the judiciary and the legislature in specific instances.
Before trying to get rid of it, first people should try to see what would happen if it was removed.
It would make the Judiciary supreme over the executive in all situations.
it's also a check on the legislature if it ever passed a law the president found so egregious that he felt the need to pardon people.
But any legislature that bad would also impeach a president for pardoning people breaking the bad law, so we would probably end up with a constitutional crisis in that situation anyway.
It is something that is a giant anachronism to our system. I’ve never understood why it is there to start with.
Good post.
It is part of the checks and balances system, giving the executive an override of both the judiciary and the legislature in specific instances.
Before trying to get rid of it, first people should try to see what would happen if it was removed.
It would make the Judiciary supreme over the executive in all situations.
The executive check on the judiciary already exist in the Presidential power to nominated judges.
but after they are on the bench??
martybegan set me straight on that. He won, I lost. However, I still think the principle of the impeachment—to where one person can set aside the work of a jury and potentially appellate judges does violence to our judicial system. I mean, it will never happen but theoretically the next president could free every federal prisoner without retribution, without debate, without any input from the other two branches. It, in and of it self, seems like an unchecked power. But, hey, our system also allows one senator to bring legislation to a grinding halt…. So there are a lot of rules that we have that do not favor the old “majority rules” edict. Again, Marty set me straight on this.
I don't see it as win/lose. It was a clarification.
Trust me, considering our political differences if it was a 'win" I would be crowing about it.
And if a president did that they would be impeached in a heartbeat.
How is he abusing it, because he pardons people the left doesn't like? That's all this boils down to. Obama pardoned a murdering terrorist. I Clinton pardoned an international criminal.As I said before...the Founders never thought a Pussy Grabbing Lying Criminal would be elected as President. He was and now he is abusing his power as no other Commander in Chief before.
To think.. .Rudy suggested trump can pardon himself...That is the definition of an Autocracy...a Dictatorship. Basically....Rudy is saying....trump is above the law.
How is he abusing it, because he pardons people the left doesn't like? That's all this boils down to. Obama pardoned a murdering terrorist. I Clinton pardoned an international criminal.As I said before...the Founders never thought a Pussy Grabbing Lying Criminal would be elected as President. He was and now he is abusing his power as no other Commander in Chief before.
To think.. .Rudy suggested trump can pardon himself...That is the definition of an Autocracy...a Dictatorship. Basically....Rudy is saying....trump is above the law.
As long as no murderers are pardoned, I don't see a problem.Governors & presidents too often get carried away with this crap. Trump seems to be no different.
