Dan, do you know how many criminals Obama returned to the streets? Do you know how many criminals the sanctuary cities returned to the streets? Think Katie Stienle’s life was worth nothing to when San Fran released a criminal to the streets?
People pardoned or granted clemency by:
Joe’s not a high level democrat.
They should have gone for the death penalty.
What none of you are understanding is that this has created a Constitutional crisis, how do you have separation of powers if the president removes the one power the court has to compel people to follow their rulings?
The President…shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
ARTICLE II, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 1
What about this provision of THE CONSTITUTION do you have a problem understanding?.. Was this a case of impeachment? You and yours should actually read the constitution before you comment on it somehow being in conflict with the constitution when it is in fact a provision of the constitution…
Proof that liberals have never once read the Constitution.
What a revolting POS.
It’s hard to imagine that it can get worse than rounding-up hispanics.
Then it gets worse: Arpaio doesn’t give a damn about sex crimes against women, or girls, for that matter.
Question: can a group of hispanics, rounded-up by Arpaio, bring, besides a civil complaint, an action in The Hague?
All covered by the emolument clause I’m quite sure.
What you don’t understand is that this is nothing new.
The previous president modified the ACA without the permission of congress the law making body.
The previous president created law with DACA.
The previous president shut down the investigation of fast and furious with a claim of executive privilege. Where was your outrage?
Why is it ok for Obama to circumvented the constitution yet when Trump attempts an over reach, it isn’t?
A constitutional crisis? Not really.
The court makes its opinions on how things should be handled but can’t enforce them. The only thing that it can enforce is preventing an unconstitutional law from passing. Back during segregation the supreme court ruled that it could only exist if both sides were equal, but both sides were very unequal, yet the supreme court couldn’t enforce its ruling of equality in facilities…so the ruling of the supreme court was ineffective. So if it has this “one power the court has to compel people to follow their rulings” truly existed in the first place the 1960’s and beyond would have played out much differently.
To add onto that - there was also Andrew Jackson and Worcester v. Georgia where the Supreme Court couldn’t enforce its decision.
Then the president can order anyone to do anything unconstitutional and just promise to pardon them if the courts try to stop them?
The courts just can’t check a president’s power?
What if the Supreme Court rules this pardon unconstitutional due to the 5th or 15th amendments because amendments override the pardon power, then Trump pardons everyone who defies that order. That seems like the path totalitarian state.
Could they check Obama???
Sounds very slippery slope to me. Exercising presidential checks and balances is far from a path to a totalitarian state.
John Nolte is back and as something to say to all the right people
Speaking as a non-lawyer, I don’t want to see the President’s pardon power interfered with directly. The remedy for Trump’s actions is impeachment. If Congress refuses to impeach Trump for the sum total of his offenses, then we have a much worse problem than the one objectionable pardon.
Furthermore, the main problem with pardoning Arpaio is that he is a human rights abuser of the worst sort. The best remedy is ample press coverage of Arpaio’s crimes and abuses.
Up Next: President Donald J. Trump caugh peeing on the White House’s lawn, and it’s an impeachable offence.