Do you believe a President should have the right to pardon? (ethical, drugs)

[Crashj007]

Originally Posted by peequi

<>Technically speaking, can I say pardon gives a president veto power over judicial power?

Yes it does. And as I noted before:
Jail is "No Country for Old Men" especially for a LEO with a sentence pending for contempt of court.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by Crashj007

Yes it does. And as I noted before:
Jail is "No Country for Old Men" especially for a LEO with a sentence pending for contempt of court.

I do not think age or health should ever exempt anyone from prison.

I want to see that 90 plus year old ex SS guard from Queens returned to Europe for trial.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

Mel Reynolds, child molester Clinton pardoned, is the worst IMO.

But I abhor all POTUS pardons, on principle.

Had never heard of the case, so I googled it. The girl was 16. and the sex was consensual .

age of consent 16 (31): Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio,[a] Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,[b] Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia

age of consent 17 (8): Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, Texas,[c] Wyoming

age of consent 18 (11): Arizona, California, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, North Dakota, Oregon, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin

It makes perfect sense to pardon someone for something that is legal in more than half the US and is legal on the federal level.

[Crashj007]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

Mel Reynolds, child molester Clinton pardoned, is the worst IMO.
But I abhor all POTUS pardons, on principle.

Wow. a clear improper, politically motivated commutation of sentence for a lifetime criminal politician buddy, who is still at it. Statutory rape very bad in this case, like a teacher's role, but being a small item on his list of criminal activity AFTER the commutation for bank fraud.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Reynolds

[Hesychios]

I believe in the right of the people of the United States to elect a moral degenerate, if that's what they really want. That doesn't mean such a person should be granting pardons.

I think it would be best if Presidential pardons were vetted by the Senate. That would probably require a Constitutional Amendment.

The Constitution states:
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Article II, Section 2, clause 1

I presume the point of the exception here is to prevent the Executive from usurping the authority of the Legislative. Perhaps the Founding Fathers anticipated the danger of a potential strong man or dictator having his own "get out of jail free" card. An ability to pardon the perpetrators to be impeached would disrupt the checks and balances in place.

[moneill]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

As someone who respects the rule of law, I do not, under any POTUS, under any circumstance.

I don't. I have never understood it.

[ELOrocks17]

Perhaps if the POTUS gave a clear and exact reason as to WHY he is pardoning them, it might make sense. Like when OBama pardoned someone guilty of illegally dumping toxic waste. Why?

[Hesychios]

Originally Posted by Javanka2024

Dylan Roof might get pardon too ....

Now that would send a message, just like Arpaio's pardon, but more forcefully.

[Redraven]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

I am not asking the question based on any single pardon, but rather upon respecting the principle of the rule of law.

It is a POTUS' sole right which, to me, more resembles the right a dictator might have elsewhere.

It rejects a court decision. We are a nation of laws, not men.

Yes, that's right, we ARE a Nation of Laws. The Supreme Law of The Land is the Constitution.
Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, at the end of the first paragraph, states "...and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." Who does that refer to? Well, the first two words of Section 2 are "The President...", so it is rather obvious.

Anyone who can not accept that is not, IMO, in favor of "Law and Order".

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by Redraven

Yes, that's right, we ARE a Nation of Laws. The Supreme Law of The Land is the Constitution.
Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, at the end of the first paragraph, states "...and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." Who does that refer to? Well, the first two words of Section 2 are "The President...", so it is rather obvious.

Anyone who can not accept that is not, IMO, in favor of "Law and Order".

I would favor amending it. It is, IMO, a balance at the time we were founded, between having the rule of law via the court system, and having one person (POTUS) above it. Dangerous.