Register | Login | |||||
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
| |
0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate. |
Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - President Bush is Attempting to Pardon... Himself. | New poll | | |
Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
User | Post | ||
Tommathy Since: 11-17-05 From: Cloud Nine, Turn Left and I'm There~ Last post: 6321 days Last view: 6321 days |
| ||
Cafferty: "What Are We Becoming?" | |||
||bass Administrator Since: 11-17-05 From: Salem, Connecticut Last post: 6323 days Last view: 6321 days |
| ||
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. | |||
witeasprinwow Since: 12-29-05 Last post: 6431 days Last view: 6431 days |
| ||
(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. |
|||
beneficii Broom Hatter Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6325 days Last view: 6321 days |
| ||
Originally posted by witeasprinwow 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. |
|||
||bass Administrator Since: 11-17-05 From: Salem, Connecticut Last post: 6323 days Last view: 6321 days |
| ||
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 Broom Hatter Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6325 days Last view: 6321 days |
| ||
Originally posted by ||bass 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 Then again, it may prevent future prosecution of said President. (edited by beneficii on 09-30-06 12:35 AM) |
|||
emcee Red Super Koopa Since: 11-20-05 Last post: 6322 days Last view: 6321 days |
| ||
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. | |||
Sinfjotle Lordly? No, not quite. Since: 11-17-05 From: Kansas Last post: 6323 days Last view: 6321 days |
| ||
"Hey guys, let's admit that we're criminals!"
...What the fuck? |
|||
Young Guru Snifit Since: 11-18-05 From: Notre Dame, IN Last post: 6328 days Last view: 6321 days |
| ||
Originally posted by emcee 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. |
|||
windwaker Ninji i'm not judgemental, i'm cynical Lonely People of the World, Unite! Since: 12-27-05 Last post: 6351 days Last view: 6329 days |
| ||
Originally posted by ||bass By signing a bill that pardons himself, yes, he would be pardoning himself. Think. |
|||
||bass Administrator Since: 11-17-05 From: Salem, Connecticut Last post: 6323 days Last view: 6321 days |
| ||
Originally posted by windwakerNO 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.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. |
|||
emcee Red Super Koopa Since: 11-20-05 Last post: 6322 days Last view: 6321 days |
| ||
Originally posted by ||bass 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 Administrator Since: 11-17-05 From: Salem, Connecticut Last post: 6323 days Last view: 6321 days |
| ||
Originally posted by emceeThat'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 Red Super Koopa Since: 11-20-05 Last post: 6322 days Last view: 6321 days |
| ||
Originally posted by ||bass 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. |
|||
MathOnNapkins 1100 In SPC700 HELL Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6321 days Last view: 6321 days |
| ||
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. |
|||
sandrocklq Red Cheep-cheep Since: 07-31-06 Last post: 6459 days Last view: 6459 days |
| ||
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. | |||
||bass Administrator Since: 11-17-05 From: Salem, Connecticut Last post: 6323 days Last view: 6321 days |
| ||
Originally posted by emceeActually 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. |
Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - President Bush is Attempting to Pardon... Himself. | | |