word up!
I'd like to think that that was what trip was getting at, but then again I'm a huge carebear
Bush Pardons Libby.
- Thread starter Gwokable
- Start date
word up!
I'd like to think that that was what trip was getting at, but then again I'm a huge carebear
A pardon is forgiveness for a crime committed, it is not meant to put the judicial branch into the president's hands.
"The criminal code of every country partakes so much of necessary severity, that without an easy access to exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt, justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel. As the sense of responsibility is always strongest, in proportion as it is undivided, it may be inferred that a single man would be most ready to attend to the force of those motives which might plead for a mitigation of the rigor of the law, and least apt to yield to considerations which were calculated to shelter a fit object of its vengeance. The reflection that the fate of a fellow-creature depended on his sole fiat, would naturally inspire scrupulousness and caution; the dread of being accused of weakness or connivance, would beget equal circumspection, though of a different kind."
-Alexander Hamilton
-Alexander Hamilton
That's.. blatantly false.
Scooter Libby was not president of the united states, had no such presidential powers, and was employed at the discretion of the president. No one in america considered him "president", and no one refers to presidential staff when talking about "the presidency".
"The presidency" - what's the first thing you think of, cheney, rove, or the white house tour guide? Uh, no, its bush, clinton, carter. That's why they call it the "Bush administration".
Presidential staffs are part of the executive branch at large, not the actual presidency (which is a one-man institution) - throwing them into the presidency itself is like talking about scooter as if he were at equal footing with george bush when it comes to the big red button.
Funny, i dont remember that in the Constitution. This has nothing to do with rights, sorry.
United States Constitution, Article II, Section 2, which states that the President: "shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."
The PRESIDENT has the power to do this. It isnt about your RIGHT to be granted it or even to have your request reviewed. I may be wrong, but i highly doubt you have the RIGHT to have your case even addressed by the President.
Why not in cases of impeachment? Think about it.
Sorry.
The President is more than a person. It's an institution. If the person in that position is able to grant clemency to themselves, to their family, to their staff or to their financial partners... it compromises the integrity of the institution.
In the case of staff, they are PART of the "President" as an office. For him/her to grant clemency to STAFF is akin to granting clemency to themselves.
And in a situation where the behavior involves something like Obstruction of Justice, it's more than a little fuckin inappropriate for the Presidency to be granting clemency to itself. In fact, it's to say that the Presidency is entirely above the law.
I dont disagree regarding an independent board. Technically, all clemency cases go through the Department of Justice and there are regulations regarding the Pardon Attorneys who review cases and make recommendations. But whatever would be done would have to be formulated within a careful balance of powers.
No, sorry, but their staff is certainly implied in "Presidency" when it comes to liability and crime. The entire White House administration and cabinet... anybody who'd be a liability.
If your secretary is caught obstructing justice pertaining in investigation into your ADMINISTRATION... that secretary's guilty has direct implications on YOU. If he/she went down and was convicted, it would be absolutely inappropriate for you to grant clemency and would undeniably imply your complicity all along.
I doubt you'll ever appreciate this point until a democrat is involved.
Last edited:
Sorry, but that's completely untrue.
You're the one bucking the constitution here, not me.
NO! Triple no longer supports Bush!
Untrue my ass.
We disagree, although you have nothing in the constitution to support YOUR claims - and you're posturing doesnt make you sound any less foolish.
And speaking of repeating posts... Triple...
Do you agree or disagree with Buckley in the video below?
Buckley: Bush Not A True Conservative
"I think Mr. Bush faces a singular problem best defined, I think, as the absence of effective conservative ideology."
Untrue my ass.
We disagree, although you have nothing in the constitution to support YOUR claims - and you're posturing doesnt make you sound any less foolish.
And speaking of repeating posts... Triple...
Do you agree or disagree with Buckley in the video below?
Buckley: Bush Not A True Conservative
"I think Mr. Bush faces a singular problem best defined, I think, as the absence of effective conservative ideology."
I've made the CRAZY suggestion that presidents shouldnt give clemency in cases of:
1. their family
2. their staff
3. people they have financial relations with
Yes, i cited it when you claimed we had "rights" to clemency, which we do not.
In fact, it states the President has the power to pardon EXCEPT in cases of Impeachment.
Triple, our constitutional expert, please tell us why the President doesnt have and shouldnt have the power to pardon in cases of impeachment.
We'll wait for a coherent and straight-forward response.
1. their family
2. their staff
3. people they have financial relations with
Yes, i cited it when you claimed we had "rights" to clemency, which we do not.
In fact, it states the President has the power to pardon EXCEPT in cases of Impeachment.
Triple, our constitutional expert, please tell us why the President doesnt have and shouldnt have the power to pardon in cases of impeachment.
We'll wait for a coherent and straight-forward response.
Obskure, opinions are everywhere, just because you agree with anyone else does not make theirs more valuable in the long run. Just look at how many people agree with osama.
What matters is being right, and if we're talking about constitutional powers, the one ignoring what's written in the constitution is probably incorrect.
What matters is being right, and if we're talking about constitutional powers, the one ignoring what's written in the constitution is probably incorrect.
I didn't read the thread, mostly because everybody on TW are fucking morons.. but tell me what the fuck does the impeachment clause have to do with scooter libby?
Slightly wrong. I claimed, if you would actually take the 15 seconds needed to read and understand my argument, that we have the right to ask for clemency.
But, lets take your logic for a run around hypothetical boulevard. Hypothetically speaking, how would you react if we took away the power of the president to grant clemency for.. black people? How about gay people?
Why, you'd say, we'd be taking away their fundamental constitutional rights! You'd be outraged at this discrimination!
But.. you said it yourself - the right to ask for clemency isn't a right. (And thus, can't be taken away.)
How do you justify that?