But since Ford pardoned Nixon, I have to question the ability to pardon oneself.
Also, since a pardon cannot be issued for a crime that has not yet been committed, how can a crime be proven, unless one is convicted?
Last edited:
Dick Cheney Indicted
- Thread starter Geo
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
But since Ford pardoned Nixon, I have to question the ability to pardon oneself.
Also, since a pardon cannot be issued for a crime that has not yet been committed, how can a crime be proven, unless one is convicted?
But since Ford pardoned Nixon, I have to question the ability to pardon oneself.
I am not sure how that would work, but it looks like Bush might be able to pardon everyone else for any crime committed between x and x years. Does the president have any special immunity for actions taken while in office or does he have to follow the same rules as a regular citizen?
These are great legal questions that I wish someone knew the answer too.
Me too.......... I did find this, that I thought was interesting.
A presidential pardon relieves the offender of all punishments, penalties, and disabilities that flow directly from the conviction, provided that no rights have vested in a third party as a consequence of the judgment. In Boyd v. United States, 142 U.S. 450 (1892), for example, the defense objected to the testimony of a witness who had been convicted of larceny. In response, the prosecution presented a full and unconditional pardon issued by President Harrison. The Court held that the pardon restored the competency of the witness to testify. "The disability to testify being a consequence, according to the principles of the common law, of the judgment of conviction, the pardon obliterated that effect." Id. at 453-54. This conclusion is supported by the English common law from which the framers drew their understanding of the scope of the power being granted the Chief Executive. The Pardon Clause of the Constitution was derived from the pardon power held by the King of England at the adoption of the Constitution. Accordingly, the Supreme Court has repeatedly looked to English cases for guidance in interpreting the effect of a pardon. See, e.g., Schick v. Reed, 419 U.S. 256, 262-63 (1974); Ex Parte Wells, 59 U.S. (18 How.) 307, 310-11 (1855). At common law it was well settled that a pardon by the king removed not only the punishment that flowed from the offense, but also "all the legal disabilities consequent on the crime." 7 Matthew Bacon, A New Abridgment of the Law 416 (1852); see, e.g., Cuddington v. Wilkins, 80 Eng. Rep. 231, 232 (K.B. 1614) ("[T]he King's pardon doth not only clear the offence it self, but all the dependencies, penalties, and disabilities incident unto it.").
Ahhhhhhhh.....here's an answer to one of our questions: Throughout the Nation's history, Presidents have asserted the power to issue pardons prior to conviction, and the consistent view of the Attorneys General has been that such pardons have as full an effect as pardons issued after conviction. See, e.g., Pardoning Power of the President, 6 Op. Att'y Gen. 20 (1853); Pardons, 1 Op. Att'y Gen. 341 (1820). Indeed, in two of the best-known exercises of the pardon power (President Andrew Johnson's offer of pardons to persons involved in secession but willing to take an oath of loyalty, and President Jimmy Carter's pardon of persons who avoided military service during the Vietnam War), the vast majority of those pardoned had not been convicted of any crime. The language of the Court's opinion in Garland is instructive on this issue:
A pardon reaches both the punishment prescribed for the offence and the guilt of the offender; and when the pardon is full, it releases the punishment and blots out of existence the guilt [for the offense], so that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offence.
Garland, 71 U.S. at 380 (emphasis added). We understand this passage to mean that a pardon removes or prevents the attachment of all consequences that are based on guilt for the offense. In the great majority of cases, a pardon comes after a conviction; thus, there has already been a finding of guilt in the criminal justice process. It is important to understand, however, that the pardon is for the guilt for an offense, not just the conviction of the offense. Thus, a pardon for an offense that is issued prior to a conviction has the same effect as one that is issued after a conviction. Any consequences that would have attached had there been a conviction are precluded. (4)http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/pardon3.19.htm
Last edited:
You are right
I apologize. You are right. It is a news report about crooks. There are people who invest in the Vanguard Group (me included) who apparently invest in prison companies (who knew?) who are crooks and should be jailed. I am sorry. Please continue your discussion about crooks, whether there is any evidence, and whether the prosecutor seems a bit unstable or not. By the way, as an investor in Vanguard, I am asking that a couple of you please send me a note in prison. It will help
I apologize. You are right. It is a news report about crooks. There are people who invest in the Vanguard Group (me included) who apparently invest in prison companies (who knew?) who are crooks and should be jailed. I am sorry. Please continue your discussion about crooks, whether there is any evidence, and whether the prosecutor seems a bit unstable or not. By the way, as an investor in Vanguard, I am asking that a couple of you please send me a note in prison. It will help
Funny how it is insulting and irrelevant when written by conservatives but insightful academic discussion when written by liberals.
Yep, say something questionable about the "messiah" and see how irrelevant the issue really becomes.
AUTOMATED RESPONSE:
You have exceeded the allotted number of posts for a single user in a single thread that contain:
- A sarcastic (albeit witty) investment/prison analogy
- A disingenuous apology
eom
FYI calling somebody the messiah is not a putdown and if it's intended to be bitter sarcasm (of course it is) as in "Hey Y'all obama is no freakin' messiah", well most Obama supporters would agree, so what's your point??? Maybe YOUR messiah has lost his mojo. I would think so, just like all of his followers. Obama is the unequivocal people's choice. Can you say the same about your messiah if you have one and whomever that might be? I don't think so. If your messiah had to run against Obama, he would be left in the dust. He couldn't even beat Hillary.
I know that leftists everywhere are hoping that Bush, Cheney and Rove serve some prison time. It ain't goin' to happen folks. The DA in that Texas county is a Looney Tune, pure and simple. His term expires soon. This was his last shot I suppose. Here is the sad part: once indicted, you must defend yourself. Guess who is paying for Cheney's defense lawyers? Yeah, the same taxpayers who are going to bail out every industry in America. Is this really the way you want your tax dollars spent?