11th hour Bush pardons - Page 4 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

BlueK · 01-19-2009, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archaea

I understand the concept, not certain if a person can pardon himself. That doesn't sound logical.

Which is why I don't think it's a stretch that the Supreme Court would rule that the power to pardon doesn't extend to pardoning oneself. It totally flies in the face of what the Constitution is about.

Archaea · 01-19-2009, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueK

Which is why I don't think it's a stretch that the Supreme Court would rule that the power to pardon doesn't extend to pardoning oneself. It totally flies in the face of what the Constitution is about.

I imagine the Supreme Court issuing an opinion such as this, "we normally can't delve into the power of the Executive Branch to issue pardons but..."

I hope he doesn't do that because I really don't want the door to review pardons to start. At that point, the Supreme Court starts usurping the executive power.

Tex · 01-19-2009, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueK

Which is why I don't think it's a stretch that the Supreme Court would rule that the power to pardon doesn't extend to pardoning oneself. It totally flies in the face of what the Constitution is about.

And you are one of the guys upset at Bush's own alleged power grab.

Remarkable.

MikeWaters · 01-19-2009, 07:43 PM

What if a presient pardoned all crimes ever committed in America, as well as all future crimes ever committed in America?

Would that be constitutional?

I think SCOTUS would rule that the pardon has to be for a specific person for a specific crime. With submitted paperwork. And all signatures attached.

Archaea · 01-19-2009, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

What if a presient pardoned all crimes ever committed in America, as well as all future crimes ever committed in America?

Would that be constitutional?

I think SCOTUS would rule that the pardon has to be for a specific person for a specific crime. With submitted paperwork. And all signatures attached.

Sounds absurd, but lets say, he pardoned a class of individuals in order to put something behind us, I'm not so certain they would review it. And in denying cert, they might make a comment. That sounds like a more difficult question than at first blush.

Self-pardon? Sounds questionable. Mass pardons? Maybe not as much.

BlueK · 01-19-2009, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex

And you are one of the guys upset at Bush's own alleged power grab.

Remarkable.

You would care if Clinton had tried the same thing.

Archaea · 01-19-2009, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueK

You would care if Clinton had tried the same thing.

Is anybody just a little tired of Watergate, Iran, Iran-Contra, Whitewater, Monicagate, and whatever other political spectacle Congress can dredge up?

I know the call for change was really just a call to change one group of cronies to another group, but when do we just move on?

OTOH, this is a time-honored practice of those in power castigating those ousted from power. So carry on, let the games begin.

Tex · 01-19-2009, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueK

You would care if Clinton had tried the same thing.

Perhaps. Depends on what exactly he (hypothetically) would do. When it comes to war powers I support a strong executive, be it Clinton, Bush, or Obama.

The irony is that you don't, yet you want the Supreme Court to take a historically unprecedented and constitutionally unsupported step in restricting a president's power ... all because the thought of him using it in some way pisses you off.

MikeWaters · 01-19-2009, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archaea

Is anybody just a little tired of Watergate, Iran, Iran-Contra, Whitewater, Monicagate, and whatever other political spectacle Congress can dredge up?

I know the call for change was really just a call to change one group of cronies to another group, but when do we just move on?

OTOH, this is a time-honored practice of those in power castigating those ousted from power. So carry on, let the games begin.

When a president tries to turn this country into a torturing banana republic, that's not just merely 'politics'. That's something that has to be ferretted out and exposed.

Archaea · 01-19-2009, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

When a president tries to turn this country into a torturing banana republic, that's not just merely 'politics'. That's something that has to be ferretted out and exposed.

I agree that waterboarding was torture, and Bush apparently stopped it after knowledge of it became widespread. If you wish to empower the rest of the world by further disclosures go right on ahead.

So you vote in favor of continued castigations for the duration of the Obama presidency so that the tabloids and shows can have their vetting? Noted.

Are there other ways to prevent the recurrence other than expensive show trials and public vengeance?

01-19-2009, 07:43 PM	#34
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	What if a presient pardoned all crimes ever committed in America, as well as all future crimes ever committed in America? Would that be constitutional? I think SCOTUS would rule that the pardon has to be for a specific person for a specific crime. With submitted paperwork. And all signatures attached.