(Link to AcmlmWiki) Offline: thank ||bass
Register | Login
Views: 13,040,846
 Main | Memberlist | Active users | Calendar | Chat | Online users
Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album 		05-29-24 10:18 AM
0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate.
Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - President Bush is Attempting to Pardon... Himself.
  
User name:
Password:
Reply:
 
Options: - -
Quik-Attach:
Preview for more options
Max size 1.00 MB, types: png, gif, jpg, txt, zip, rar, tar, gz, 7z, ace, mp3, ogg, mid, ips, bz2, lzh, psd

UserPost
||bass
Posts: 491/594
Originally posted by emcee
Either way I'm not that concerned. It just a law, meaning it can be repeal with another law. So if we do end up with Democratic congress in November, then they can essentually unpardon him any time they want.
Actually no they can't. Because it would put people in jeopardy for previous action, that ex-post-facto legislation would be equivalent to a bill of attainder on Bush and would be struck down by the supreme court. That's the way it works. It only goes in one direction.
sandrocklq
Posts: 209/210		 At this point I really don't care if he gets away with it, as long as he's out of office come January 2009. Bush's legacy is almost completely tarnished. Only the die hards support him now, and they don't care if he's been caught red handed anyway. I only hope that this is not setting some kind of precedent for future presidents.
MathOnNapkins
Posts: 839/1106		 There was a YouTube reply in there: link

I only watched this once but as I understand it, this new legislation only extends existing protection to government officials for acts committed between September 11, 2001 and the date he previous bill was passed. Effectively, it doesn't really do much more than the original legislation, which provided the protection starting on the day it was passed.

Although I don't know how that works out.... how could you prosecute somebody for something that happens in the past when you would excuse them for doing the same thing in the present? I think they were just removing ambiguity. It sounds like the pardoning happened at least a year ago and it's just now becoming a (misinterpreted) issue.
emcee
Posts: 569/867
Originally posted by ||bass
That's exactally what I mean when I talk about ex post facto laws only being ilegal in the same context as bills of attainder.


Is there any legal precedence to that effect?

Either way I'm not that concerned. It just a law, meaning it can be repeal with another law. So if we do end up with Democratic congress in November, then they can essentually unpardon him any time they want.

Also, since I support amnesty for currently illegal immigrants, it would be kind of hypocritical of me to complain about this, since its the same type of thing.
||bass
Posts: 486/594
Originally posted by emcee
I've only heard of ex post facto being used to describe law that make act commited before the law was created illegal,
That's exactally what I mean when I talk about ex post facto laws only being ilegal in the same context as bills of attainder.
emcee
Posts: 566/867
Originally posted by ||bass
Also, ex-post-facto laws are only ilegal in the same context that bills of attainder are ilegal. You can still give after the fact exemptions and reprives.


By that you mean they're both outlawed in the Constitution?

I've only heard of ex post facto being used to describe law that make act commited before the law was created illegal, but there doesn't seem to anything in the definition that would make it not apply here. But that would be for a court to decide.
||bass
Posts: 484/594
Originally posted by windwaker
Originally posted by ||bass
It doesn't matter because if you read the actual article, the president ISN'T pardoning himself. In this case, Bush would be reciving a CONGRESSIONAL pardon, not a presidential one.

By signing a bill that pardons himself, yes, he would be pardoning himself.

Think.
NO he wouldn't be. You need to look up the legal definition of a 'pardon'. A Congressional pardon isn't actually a pardon, it's simply the writing of an exception into the law.

Also, ex-post-facto laws are only ilegal in the same context that bills of attainder are ilegal. You can still give after the fact exemptions and reprives.
windwaker
Posts: 222/235
Originally posted by ||bass
It doesn't matter because if you read the actual article, the president ISN'T pardoning himself. In this case, Bush would be reciving a CONGRESSIONAL pardon, not a presidential one.

By signing a bill that pardons himself, yes, he would be pardoning himself.

Think.
Young Guru
Posts: 140/279
Originally posted by emcee
it will keep them from being prosecuted for violation made in the past, before this legislation took affect.

Um, doesn't that violate the constitution. You know the article, no bills of attaider or ex post facto laws. Yeah, that's pretty much what this sounds like, but instead of the ex post facto making a previous act illegal, it's making it legal. I didn't read the article, but from that quote, if it's correct, then this is gonna get shot down right quick by the Sup. Court if they have any self respect and dignity left in the US and the constitution.
Sinfjotle
Posts: 1409/1697		 "Hey guys, let's admit that we're criminals!"

...What the fuck?
emcee
Posts: 558/867		 No, it has nothing to do with presidential pardons. Congress is passing a law written by the administration that will not only allow the administration to violate the Geneva Convention in the future, it will keep them from being prosecuted for violation made in the past, before this legislation took affect. This is what happens when one party controls every branch of government.
beneficii
Posts: 258/310
Originally posted by ||bass
It doesn't matter because if you read the actual article, the president ISN'T pardoning himself. In this case, Bush would be reciving a CONGRESSIONAL pardon, not a presidential one.


What article? I just see a YouTube link, and as I'm not interested in lagging my computer, I didn't click on it. Is it possible that a link can be proferred?

Either way it would have no point, because:

Originally posted by US Constitution Article II Section 2
[The President] shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.


Then again, it may prevent future prosecution of said President.
||bass
Posts: 483/594		 It doesn't matter because if you read the actual article, the president ISN'T pardoning himself. In this case, Bush would be reciving a CONGRESSIONAL pardon, not a presidential one.
beneficii
Posts: 257/310
Originally posted by witeasprinwow
(As ||Bass reaffirmed in IRC...)

He isn't pardoning himself. He can't. Congress has control over wether he stays in office or not, not himself.


No, the President can pardon himself; he can pardon anyone for any federal crime. His limitation comes to cases of impeachment. That's the check the Constitution puts on the President's ability to commit criminal acts and get away with it simply by pardoning himself.
witeasprinwow
Posts: 562/613		 (As ||Bass reaffirmed in IRC...)

He isn't pardoning himself. He can't. Congress has control over wether he stays in office or not, not himself.
||bass
Posts: 481/594		 I won't comment on the morality of the issue because everyone would disagree with me anyway. What I will say is that right or wrong, the act is perfectally legal.
Tommathy
Posts: 291/339		 Cafferty: "What Are We Becoming?"
Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - President Bush is Attempting to Pardon... Himself.


ABII

Acmlmboard 1.92.999, 9/17/2006
©2000-2006 Acmlm, Emuz, Blades, Xkeeper

Page rendered in 0.011 seconds; used 362.05 kB (max 418.72 kB)