Powers of pardon need to be restricted.

[LuckyDuck]

Governors & presidents too often get carried away with this crap. Trump seems to be no different.

Presidents, including that crappy one, Obama, have pardoned people, but until Trump did it, no one seemed to complain. So, let's see what horrible people Trump pardoned:
Dinesh D'Souza (OCCUPATION: Author, Lecturer) He pled guilty to campaign finance law) he donated too much to a political candidate. Fact: Even though many have been found guilty of campaign finance law before him, he was the ONLY one to be sent to prison for it...reason...the Obama administration wanted him punished simply because he was red-flagged as a Conservative and had written a book critical of Obama. That's it.
The second person: Martha Stewart (OCCUPATION: TV Personality/Cook). There's a dangerous one. Guilty of Insider Trading (she only acted on the advice of her stock broker).
The third person: Rob Blagojevich (OCCUPATION: Former Governor). Guilty of public corruption charges and given a 14 year sentence.
The first two had actually served their sentences and were free, having paid their debt to society, as they say (but in reality former convicts are never considered to have paid their debt to society).
Not a particularly dangerous bunch.
Let's check on Obama's pardons, shall we:
Bank robber.
Bank embezzler.
Assorted drug dealers (we're not talking users).
Firearms crimes (yet everyone complains that we are too lenient on gun crimes).
No comparison.
But, my stance remains that presidents can pardon who they choose.
The only reason people are complaining now, is because it was Trump, otherwise we wouldn't here a peep. A bunch of hypocrites.

 

[Snouter]

Not to derail the thread but again it is about pardons and "Blago" getting loose is the last thing the Swamp and their MSM wants and they will indeed meltdown like crazy when he is on Hannity!

Thank God for You Tube.

 

[martybegan]

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?

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....

No…getting input from Kim Kardashin is a bad thing. Or do you consider her an expert on Prison Reform and why?

She has a cause, she is petitioning the President. Plenty of Celebrities did that when Obama was President. Why now all of a sudden is it such a big deal?

Sly Stallone got Jack Johnson pardoned. If someone uses their celebrity to get something good done, and they don't get all preachy and bitchy about it, I don't have an issue with it.

 

[martybegan]

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 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'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.

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 just another layer of protection. Again, sometimes it gets used for stupid reasons, but that isn't a reason to get rid of it.

First understand why the fence is in the field, then you can tear it down.

 

[Snouter]

Our President did a great presentation in regards to pardoning Johnson!

 

[martybegan]

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.

Best idea wins (or at least it should). Those who have the best idea…win.

Pearl Harbor at the time was a great idea. The problem with great ideas is they sometimes have a time limit.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Kids, it is important to keep in mind that every norm and standard Trump blows through is setting a precedent for the next Democratic President.

I'll be on Social Security before that ever happens, if ever!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

....they already have checks and balances with the judges and appeals that can override juries

that is still the same branch, not a check or balance on a branch.

it is a check....the juries vote....then there are the appeals...the judges can override the juries....it is a check

An internal check, not an external check.

still a check ...it doesn't need an outside check---
the government has the outside checks .....
...plus the Senate/House/community alderman/cities/etc pass and enable/etc the laws..... that's an outside check

The whole purpose of "checks and balances" is that each branch can override the other in certain situations.

The power of pardon is a check on both the judiciaries and the legislatures of not just the federal government, but the State governments as well.

I didn't like some of the pardons Clinton and Obama gave out, but that didn't mean I wanted to end the power of pardons.

The President cannot pardon someone convicted of a state crime.

 

[candycorn]

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?

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....

No…getting input from Kim Kardashin is a bad thing. Or do you consider her an expert on Prison Reform and why?

She has a cause, she is petitioning the President. Plenty of Celebrities did that when Obama was President. Why now all of a sudden is it such a big deal?

Sly Stallone got Jack Johnson pardoned. If someone uses their celebrity to get something good done, and they don't get all preachy and bitchy about it, I don't have an issue with it.

I think you missed the point but that's okay.

 

[martybegan]

that is still the same branch, not a check or balance on a branch.

it is a check....the juries vote....then there are the appeals...the judges can override the juries....it is a check

An internal check, not an external check.

still a check ...it doesn't need an outside check---
the government has the outside checks .....
...plus the Senate/House/community alderman/cities/etc pass and enable/etc the laws..... that's an outside check

The whole purpose of "checks and balances" is that each branch can override the other in certain situations.

The power of pardon is a check on both the judiciaries and the legislatures of not just the federal government, but the State governments as well.

I didn't like some of the pardons Clinton and Obama gave out, but that didn't mean I wanted to end the power of pardons.

The President cannot pardon someone convicted of a state crime.

Has that ever been tried in the courts?

If not, I guess a President hasn't tried to pardon someone convicted of a State crime yet.

 

[candycorn]

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.

Best idea wins (or at least it should). Those who have the best idea…win.

Pearl Harbor at the time was a great idea. The problem with great ideas is they sometimes have a time limit.

huh?

I saw the movie...It was never a good idea.

 

[martybegan]

So can Trump pardon anyone who may be tempted to testify against him?

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....

No…getting input from Kim Kardashin is a bad thing. Or do you consider her an expert on Prison Reform and why?

She has a cause, she is petitioning the President. Plenty of Celebrities did that when Obama was President. Why now all of a sudden is it such a big deal?

Sly Stallone got Jack Johnson pardoned. If someone uses their celebrity to get something good done, and they don't get all preachy and bitchy about it, I don't have an issue with it.

I think you missed the point but that's okay.

No I didn't.

Yes Kim is a vapid moron (or plays one on TV) but why does that matter?

 

[martybegan]

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.

Best idea wins (or at least it should). Those who have the best idea…win.

Pearl Harbor at the time was a great idea. The problem with great ideas is they sometimes have a time limit.

huh?

I saw the movie...It was never a good idea.

People don't play to lose.

It was a good idea at the time for them.

 

[HappyJoy]

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.

That may have been it's intended use but that's not how we see it used most of the time. Seems not it is a partisan tool more often than not.

Most of the time presidential pardons are political? I doubt that.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Only democrat presidents should have the power of pardon.

 

[HappyJoy]

Only democrat presidents should have the power of pardon.

That's pretty hardcore.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

it is a check....the juries vote....then there are the appeals...the judges can override the juries....it is a check

An internal check, not an external check.

still a check ...it doesn't need an outside check---
the government has the outside checks .....
...plus the Senate/House/community alderman/cities/etc pass and enable/etc the laws..... that's an outside check

The whole purpose of "checks and balances" is that each branch can override the other in certain situations.

The power of pardon is a check on both the judiciaries and the legislatures of not just the federal government, but the State governments as well.

I didn't like some of the pardons Clinton and Obama gave out, but that didn't mean I wanted to end the power of pardons.

The President cannot pardon someone convicted of a state crime.

Has that ever been tried in the courts?

If not, I guess a President hasn't tried to pardon someone convicted of a State crime yet.

Read your Constitution please.

The President...shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States,

 

[HappyJoy]

An internal check, not an external check.

still a check ...it doesn't need an outside check---
the government has the outside checks .....
...plus the Senate/House/community alderman/cities/etc pass and enable/etc the laws..... that's an outside check

The whole purpose of "checks and balances" is that each branch can override the other in certain situations.

The power of pardon is a check on both the judiciaries and the legislatures of not just the federal government, but the State governments as well.

I didn't like some of the pardons Clinton and Obama gave out, but that didn't mean I wanted to end the power of pardons.

The President cannot pardon someone convicted of a state crime.

Has that ever been tried in the courts?

If not, I guess a President hasn't tried to pardon someone convicted of a State crime yet.

Read your Constitution please.

The President...shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States,

True, the president can only pardon criminals of federal crimes.

 

[candycorn]

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....

No…getting input from Kim Kardashin is a bad thing. Or do you consider her an expert on Prison Reform and why?

She has a cause, she is petitioning the President. Plenty of Celebrities did that when Obama was President. Why now all of a sudden is it such a big deal?

Sly Stallone got Jack Johnson pardoned. If someone uses their celebrity to get something good done, and they don't get all preachy and bitchy about it, I don't have an issue with it.

I think you missed the point but that's okay.

No I didn't.

Yes Kim is a vapid moron (or plays one on TV) but why does that matter?

It is a distraction that the discussion doesn't need. Have the summit but have serious people there.

 

[Snouter]

Wow!!!