01-19-2009, 06:12 PM | #11 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 2,368
|
Quote:
|
|
01-19-2009, 06:17 PM | #12 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 2,368
|
Quote:
Last edited by BlueK; 01-19-2009 at 06:28 PM. |
|
01-19-2009, 06:48 PM | #13 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: SLC Utah
Posts: 31
|
|
01-19-2009, 06:52 PM | #14 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,596
|
Quote:
I frankly don't have a clue what Congress would do if Bush were to preemptively pardon himself, mostly because the idea is so ridiculous it strains credulity. What I do know from an abstract view is, Congress has zero constitutional power to ratify the presidential pardon. Likewise the Supreme Court. It's amusing that in your fervor to limit what you think is unconstitutional, you demand that the Congress and Supreme Court behave in an unconstitutional way. Do tell: on what constitutional clause do your base your determination that those two branches have this right?
__________________
"Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young |
|
01-19-2009, 07:05 PM | #15 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
By the way, a Bush pardon for himself isn't a "preemptive pardon." It is would be a pardon for all actions undertaken while in office (i.e. for acts that have already occurred, not for future unspecified acts). |
|
01-19-2009, 07:11 PM | #16 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
If Bush pardons himself, it doesn't prevent:
1. Congressional inquiry and hearings 2. Civil lawsuits 3. And resultant shaming Which should all be done. Just the face that he had to pardon himself is evidence of his malfeasance. |
01-19-2009, 07:15 PM | #17 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
1. So? It can embarrass him, but I think he has demonstrated that doesn't bother him much. Other than that, no power to do anything. 2. Not exactly. Supreme Court cases indicate that it is extraordinarily difficult to hold a president civilly liable for official acts undertaken while in office (which actually makes a lot of sense if you think about it- we don't want presidents paralyzed because they are considering personal liability questions ahead of what may be best for the nation). 3. More than already? |
|
01-19-2009, 07:16 PM | #18 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 2,368
|
Quote:
|
|
01-19-2009, 07:20 PM | #19 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,596
|
Quote:
__________________
"Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young |
|
01-19-2009, 07:21 PM | #20 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
What "crimes" are speaking of? is there any allegation of financial improprieties? He hasn't testified in front of Congress, so he can't be guilty of impeding justice. What legitimate "crimes" are people hypothesizing?
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|