upvote

points

by hackingonempty6 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby ryandrake6 hours ago|
next
[-]
As we are finding out in real time, the President has the power to try to do a million things, legal or illegal, constitutional or unconstitutional, and then whichever ones don't get pushback defacto become actual powers. Throw something at the wall, if it sticks, then it's a Presidential Power. If it doesn't, there's no consequences. Just shrug and throw something else at the wall.
reply
upvoteby hackingonempty5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
The President's pardon power is enumerated in the Constitution and has been litigated extensively.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C1-3...

reply
upvoteby ryandrake5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Which ultimately doesn't matter. If the president tries to do something, and no court actually stops him, then it doesn't matter whether or not it's in the Constitution, whether or not it's written down in law, or whether or not it has been litigated in the past. He tried to do it, nobody stopped him, therefore he can do it.

We are finding out in real time that the president can actually do a lot of things, simply because nobody is stopping him.

reply
upvoteby usefulcat4 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
If you want to prosecute someone who has previously been pardoned, then you'll have to figure out how to get the courts (that is, the people who would be doing the actual prosecuting) to ignore some of the highest rules by which they operate.

I'm not saying that that could never happen, but a) it sure sounds like an uphill battle and b) it's not the same thing as the president (one person) doing whatever they feel like regardless of the law.

reply
upvoteby iamnothere4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
I don’t think these blanket pardons are a good thing at all, but an amendment is needed to fix it.

We have somehow made it a habit to ignore the inconvenient parts of the constitution when they create problems, rather than going through the enumerated process to amend them. Yes, it’s hard to amend the constitution, but that’s the point!

reply
upvoteby kelnos5 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Fair, but I don't think it's likely that SCOTUS would invalidate any of Trump's presidential pardons, assuming a future president decided to prosecute someone he pardoned. I doubt even the liberal members of SCOTUS would want to touch that.
reply
upvoteby JumpCrisscross4 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
There would still be a valuable public record produced by the investigation and court proceedings. Going after pardoned criminals is absolutely something the next administration should do. (We have zero precedent for preëmptive and blanket pardons in our courts, for example.)
reply
upvoteby hackingonempty23 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
Ex Parte Garland was decided in 1866

“The power of pardon conferred by the Constitution upon the President is unlimited except in cases of impeachment. It extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment.”

Nobody is going to waste their time investigating crimes that can't be prosecuted.

reply
upvoteby 3 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
deleted
reply