Letters to the Editor
MacK..
Published Letters: 477 Editor's Choice: 49
-
Pardons and impeachment
[Read the article: Why Bush hasn't been impeached]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I am not sure how much bearing this has on the issue, but at a press conference on February 22, 2001, Bush said:
"My opinion is I will -- should I decide to grant pardons, I will do so in a fair way. I'll have the highest of high standards."
Nonetheless, I fully expect that on the last day of his Presidency Bush will gain an acute case of writer's cramp from signing sweeping pardons for everyone from Gonzales to Cheney. The problem is, under seperation of powers, how could Congress stop Bush from doing so.
Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states that the President:
shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment
This presents a huge problem vis-a-vis this administration -- Realistically, the only mechanism would be Impeachment of the likely pardonees. Th eproblem is, could Congress do anything? Does seperation of powers means that the President can grant any pardon he likes, without stating what it is fore, even for undisclosed crimes?
Perhaps one card that could be played is that Congress could try to apply the reasoning of Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915) that states that accepting a Pardon implies an admission of guilt - to pass an item of legislation that says that the President cannot grant a hypothetical pardon, i.e., a pardon for an offence of which the pardonee has not been publicly indicted -- or an offense which is not disclosed and admitted by the pardonee (Burdick also requires a pardon to be affirmatively accepted by the pardonee to be officially recognized by the courts -- one could make "affirmative acceptance" include a full and frank admission, and also place some sort of time limit on the period to accept a pardon.)
Another angle would be to require that pardons be specific . . . i.e., that they cannot be for any offences committed while in office, but must state the specific offense for which the pardon is granted and the underlying facts -- this could be tied to the language of Article II Section 2 by arguing that a pardon must be "for offenses" means that the offenses have to be specified.
This is I think an interesting piece of legislation to enact . . . what would the White House do? Veto and practically admit that Bush plans to pardon his entire administration? Argue that it's unconstitutional and "hell I'll just issue them anyway," on which ground he might be right. If one goes by original intent, at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 a proposal, proposals to make presidential pardons subject to the approval of the Senate, and to limit pardons to persons actually convicted of crimes was defeated. However, it may be posssible to still require that pardons not be hypothetical and/or general (i.e., not for undisclosed and unspecific crimes or to a class of persons (e.g., all Bush appointees.)
-
New Project -- if you care
[Read the article: Gonzales vs. Gonzales]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Read the hearing transcript -- read the outside the hearing room interviews of the Republicans. Pick out their most grovelling efforts to ignore illegalities by Goodling, et al. Identify the local newspaper in their district. Write publishable letter (no obscenities, no jerk, idiot, moron) asking what does Congressman XXXX think he/she is doing? . . . notEing how asking political affiliations is hugely harmful.
If the district seems solidly Republican throw in a zinger . . . "it increasingly looks like the era of Republican control in Washington is over, perhaps for a long time. What if Democrats start asking the same questions? Does Congressman XXXX understand the seriousness of the precedent that this sets? Ms. Goodling admits to going the the FEC records of political contributions -- what would it do for businessmen in DISTRICT if the Democrats were to do the same on US contracts?" "If Congressman XXXX is right, maybe people should stop contributing the Republican party?"
Primaries are soon, elections not that far away -- time to start making these clowns feel the heat where it hurts, their chances of reelection.
ONE THING, KEEP THE LETTERS AND E-MAILS POLITE AND PUBLISHABLE--NO FLAMES
-
Heathrow tip
[Read the article: Ask the Pilot]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If you have a connection in Heathrow Terminal 3 DO NOT TAKE THE INTERNAL TRANSFER LINE.
The British are very suspicious of security from other Airports ever since the bomb that took down Pan Am 103 came in on a connection from Cyprus (in checked luggage) and so they make all the transfer passengers go through security even though they are on the supposedly secure side of the terminal.
Instead, just pass regular immigration -- in most cases it's faster and check in from the other side.
Oh, and if you go through Heathrow a lot -- do the Iris thing.