- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Presidential pardons should not be allowed any longer.....
Posted on 12/3/24 at 8:24 am to sidewalkside
Posted on 12/3/24 at 8:24 am to sidewalkside
I never thought pardons were a good thing.....ever.
I have experienced similar in a family case that was so unfair it was disturbing. Why have trials and sentencing, if down the road, some high- ranking elected official or parole board can set them free?
Now, if someone was unfairly sentenced, or proven innocent in a retrial, that's a different story.
I have experienced similar in a family case that was so unfair it was disturbing. Why have trials and sentencing, if down the road, some high- ranking elected official or parole board can set them free?
Now, if someone was unfairly sentenced, or proven innocent in a retrial, that's a different story.
1
Posted on 12/3/24 at 8:24 am to SidewalkDawg
quote:
Hell let's do away with the Veto while we are at it
The one thing that is an actual constitutional mechanism for checks and balances...lol. .
The President shouldnt have unilateral powers. Period.
Posted on 12/3/24 at 8:25 am to FooManChoo
quote:
If we, as a people, are concerned about pardons being used unjustly, this should be a bigger topic when vetting candidates that we want to vote for.
If I remember correctly, you don't vote for either major party POTUS candidate b/c no one—no one who has a chance to win, anyway—meets your moral criteria. Is that correct or do I have you confused with someone else?
If so, that's the flaw in your plan.
Our FFs designed a brilliant system. but they knew it only worked as long as society remained virtuous.
As John Adams famously said, "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
This would be one of the inclusions in our constitution that is "wholly inadequate" for the current people of the United States.
All you need do is look at how many posters preface their remarks with, "I would do the same thing if it were my son, but..."
You can't have a position with that kind of power when society has come to the point at which people casually think that it's no big deal to use it simply because of your selfish feelings for a family member.
I mean, you can, but you're not going to like what you're going to get.
Again, assuming I remember you correctly, you already can't find someone to vote for on moral grounds. "Vetting candidates" has already failed you, even apart from this question.
This post was edited on 12/3/24 at 8:30 am
Posted on 12/3/24 at 8:26 am to oldskule
quote:
Presidential pardons should not be allowed any longer.
The real answer is to reduce the number of federal crimes. Exponentially.
Posted on 12/3/24 at 8:27 am to oldskule
I'm even willing to go along with the notion that in very rare cases someone could earn a pardon through some noble and selfless act. Again, very rare.
This post was edited on 12/3/24 at 8:32 am
Posted on 12/3/24 at 8:28 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
The real answer is to reduce the number of federal crimes. Exponentially.
No, that's not the answer to this question.
I agree that it's something that badly needs to happen, but it's not the answer to the office of POTUS having a power that our collective moral character is inadequate to wield properly.
Posted on 12/3/24 at 8:28 am to oldskule
Padon powers were originally intended to clear up any transgressions committed in the service of the United States. It's a necessary evil that's unfortunately abused.
Posted on 12/3/24 at 8:30 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
The one thing that is an actual constitutional mechanism for checks and balances...lol. .
Are you suggesting there is no constitutional basis for Pardon powers and Executive Orders?
Posted on 12/3/24 at 8:31 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
No, that's not the answer to this question.
I agree that it's something that badly needs to happen, but it's not the answer to the office of POTUS having a power that our collective moral character is inadequate to wield properly.
Of course it is. The overwhelming majority of these crimes should be prosecuted at the state level, not the federal level.
A common tactic during the Dem/antifa/BLM riots was for states to drop their charges against rioters because the feds were prosecuting the cases, or vice versa. Then, when the outrage came because the states let criminals back out onto the street, they were able to claim they did all they could and the feds dropped the ball.
Posted on 12/3/24 at 8:32 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
Of course it is.
Of course it isn't.
Unless you mean reducing the number of federal crimes to zero.
That's the only way it could possibly be the solution to the pardon problem.
According to simple logic.
As long as there's a single federal crime left on the books the pardon can be abused.
This post was edited on 12/3/24 at 8:34 am
Posted on 12/3/24 at 8:33 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
A common tactic during the Dem/antifa/BLM riots was for states to drop their charges against rioters because the feds were prosecuting the cases, or vice versa. Then, when the outrage came because the states let criminals back out onto the street, they were able to claim they did all they could and the feds dropped the ball.
Sure, that's a problem that needs to be rectified.
It just doesn't have any particular bearing on this question.
This post was edited on 12/3/24 at 8:34 am
Posted on 12/3/24 at 8:34 am to SidewalkDawg
quote:
Are you suggesting there is no constitutional basis for Pardon powers and Executive Orders?
quote:
An Executive Order is not legislation, it is a order issued by the President to enforce laws passed by the Congress. While Executive Orders are not mentioned in the Constitution, they have used for a long time.
This isnt how EOs have been used over the past few administrations.
Posted on 12/3/24 at 8:35 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
Unless you mean reducing the number of federal crimes to zero.
I'd be fine with reducing it to just things clearly outlined in the constitution as falling under the authority of the federal government. Nothing more.
Posted on 12/3/24 at 8:37 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
I'd be fine with reducing it to just things clearly outlined in the constitution as falling under the authority of the federal government. Nothing more.
That's fine.
So you concur that doing so wouldn't solve the ability of the pardon to be abused, since there would still be crimes for which it could be abused.
Posted on 12/3/24 at 8:39 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
This isnt how EOs have been used over the past few administrations.
And there is a judicial and congressional check on this power. If Congress doesn't like how the Executive is enforcing it's law, it can legislate new law to be more specific in how it intends to be enforced.
If the Executive is overreaching in it's authority, like with Chevron, then the Judicial can reign in that authority.
That's the beauty of the system. It's not Unilateral.
Posted on 12/3/24 at 8:39 am to wackatimesthree
No, I don't agree with removing the pardon. That's not a solution.
Posted on 12/3/24 at 8:40 am to imjustafatkid
How do y'all feel about this EO?
LINK
LINK
quote:
Section 1. Policy. The long tradition of the United States as a leader in refugee resettlement provides a beacon of hope for persecuted people around the world, promotes stability in regions experiencing conflict, and facilitates international collaboration to address the global refugee crisis. Through the United States Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP), the Federal Government, cooperating with private partners and American citizens in communities across the country, demonstrates the generosity and core values of our Nation, while benefitting from the many contributions that refugees make to our country. Accordingly, it shall be the policy of my Administration that:
(a) USRAP and other humanitarian programs shall be administered in a manner that furthers our values as a Nation and is consistent with our domestic law, international obligations, and the humanitarian purposes expressed by the Congress in enacting the Refugee Act of 1980, Public Law 96–212.
(b) USRAP should be rebuilt and expanded, commensurate with global need and the purposes described above.
(c) Delays in administering USRAP and other humanitarian programs are counter to our national interests, can raise grave humanitarian concerns, and should be minimized.
(d) Security vetting for USRAP applicants and applicants for other humanitarian programs should be improved to be more efficient, meaningful, and fair, and should be complemented by sound methods of fraud detection to ensure program integrity and protect national security.
Posted on 12/3/24 at 8:40 am to RogerTheShrubber
I think it's criminal.
Posted on 12/3/24 at 8:42 am to SidewalkDawg
quote:
And there is a judicial and congressional check on this power
Yet interestingly COVID bullshite and immigration crap have somehow gone under the radar.
Go read Bidens EOs.
Posted on 12/3/24 at 8:42 am to oldskule
I’m ok with Presidential pardons but I didn’t even know a super pardon was a thing. Not only pardoning from charges made but pardoning for anything that might be found later. That’s insane.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News