Trump's Pardon Of Sheriff Arpaio "Could" Spark A Constitutional Crisis

[orangecrush]

Last edited Sun Aug 27, 2017, 04:29 AM - Edit history (1)

"This decision sets a dangerous precedent in that it undermines the predictability of the legal system. The predictability of how the law will be applied is a hallmark of a free society and what differentiates it from a tyranny. In the end, there is only one choice, the rule of law or rule by law. Rule of law means that all of us are equally treated by the law. The essence of the rule of law is that an individual can predict in advance with reasonable certainty how he or she will be treated by the American legal system for a transgression of its rules. Rule by law means that instead of the courts, an individual in power can decide who should and who should not be punished for conduct that crosses the line on what is required by the law. In short, the decision in circumstances like this one, is whether a court judge or the President should make the decision. This case sets the dangerous precedent that the President will be the arbiter of what is right and what is wrong in America. Legally speaking this is not what the constitution intended."


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/andyjsemotiuk/2017/08/25/trumps-pardon-of-sheriff-arpaio-could-spark-a-constitutional-crisis/amp/



"Could spark???"

For the love of God, WAKE UP!!!

It is perfectly obvious now that we entered a Constitutional crisis the hour this filth was sworn in.

[PoliticAverse]

1. What "Constitutional Crisis"? - he clearly has the power to pardon him under the Constitution...

and long legal precedent.

If someone challenged the pardon the Supreme Court would find he had the authority to do so 9-0.

[orangecrush]

2. That challenge is coming

So we will get to test your theory.

[PoliticAverse]

3. What's the theory as to why he can't other than it's a "bad idea"? n/t

[canetoad]

5. Reading up on the rules earlier

https://www.justice.gov/pardon/frequently-asked-questions-concerning-executive-clemency

Is there any way to get my request or correspondence directly to the President and bypass DOJ?

All executive clemency related correspondence is handled by the Department of Justice’s Office of the Pardon Attorney (OPA). Correspondence sent directly to the White House or the DOJ leadership concerning the President’s executive clemency power is forwarded to OPA for an official response.

----------

Granted, the FAQ deals mainly with petitioners. They don't assume that the president is going to rock on out, unasked, and pardon a criminal racist. Is it possible there's something in this? We know that trump acted independently of the DOJ. Is this in any way illegal?

[PoliticAverse]

6. The DOJ is part of the executive branch and works for the President not the other way around.

The President usually takes the advice of the DOJ per pardons but is constitutionally free to ignore their
advice.

The only constitutional remedy for a President abusing their pardon ability is impeachment.

[orangecrush]

8. Why are you defending this?

"Arpaio didn't meet the Justice Department guidelines for a pardon. His conviction wasn't five years old, he hadn't expressed remorse and he hadn't even applied to the Office of Pardon Attorney.
The day before, press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the president would follow a "thorough and standard process" in considering the pardon. That process usually requires seven layers of review and an FBI background check."


https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/597547001/

[PoliticAverse]

9. Pointing out that something that may be a "bad idea" isn't the same thing as it being....

a "Constitutional Crisis" isn't "defending" it.

There have been many Presidential pardons in history that were arguably bad ideas (even some that
Presidents later regretted), all were valid legally.

[orangecrush]

10. I understand what you are saying now.

If the power of presidential pardon is absolute, there isn't any legal recourse.

Which with Trump, may pose a constitutional crisis, if he continues to issue pardons for those convicted of violating the constitution, and to overturn the ruling of the courts.


"ACLU Deputy Legal Director Cecillia Wang said:

“With his pardon of Arpaio, Trump has chosen lawlessness over justice, division over unity, hurt over healing. Once again, the president has acted in support of illegal, failed immigration enforcement practices that target people of color and have been struck down by the courts. His pardon of Arpaio is a presidential endorsement of racism."



https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-comment-trump-pardon-joe-arpaio-0

[PoliticAverse]

12. The Constitutional remedy for a President doing lots of "bad" things is impeachment.

The phrase in the Constitution providing for impeachment for "other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" pretty
much covers any bad actions by a President (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors ).

[orangecrush]

13. Mueller may make that happen.

It is my feverent hope.

Link to tweet

[Hortensis]

4. Of course this will go to court the Supreme Court ultimately. It has to.

As for the wake-up stuff, don't be silly, and insulting.

It's important to understand that we really do have good people, pros, at work on our side, many tens of thousands across the nation both in government and in many private but powerful institutions. Just because we don't happen to know exactly what groups like Obama's Protect Democracy and the ACLU are doing about this right now doesn't mean it's not happening, it just means we're ignorant. At this stage, we are not the ones, they are.

Want to be part of it, to be less frustrated, the quickest, easiest way to feel like you're involved is to get online and send one of these fighting groups some money. Feel a little more energetic, join an action group yourself as a foot soldier.

[orangecrush]

7. I am an ACLU member

As for "offensive", I feel the media has erred on the side of normalizing this extremely abnormal series of events, and needs to wake up to reality and start calling this what it is - an attempted overthrow of rule of law in this country. Judging from this article in a rather conservative, long founded journal, I believe we have arrived at the point of widespread acceptance of this reality.

[Hortensis]

11. Good for you. Try to have a little faith in your organization then.

Or send them an email telling them to wake up, with caps and exclamation points, should you feel that's needed.

Almost always when I read intelligent articles about the legality of these attacks on our democracy and its systems, I am reassured by new information confirming that the law, as well as the principles it's based on, is on our side. And that it provides a lot of tools and weapons for the protection of our democracy that we don't know about.

In this case the president misused the law to enable violation of important constitutional protections. That will have to be fixed, but won't happen this week or next.

[orangecrush]

14. Thanks for the kind and encouraging words

I must add, however, that seeing the filthy animal some now call president being permitted to crap all over the legacy of a sane and decent predecessor seemingly unimpeded does not inspire faith in any amount.

[Hortensis]

16. I have enormous faith in our wonderfully resilient democracy.

It's the Rump voters crapping all over what those who came before gave us who I no longer have any faith in. I once thought more conservatives would finally reach limits they wouldn't violate and join us to stop the extremists running amok.

These people have been with us far longer than my delusions, though, along with their leaders' determination to destroy our democracy as we know it, and we've always defeated them.

Almost time to wake up and start the day. Have a good one.

[orangecrush]

17. You too

Thanks!

[orangecrush]

15. Here is another theory

That seems to say the pardon could be successfully challenged...

"The question is what is the remedy. And many would argue the only possible redress would be impeachment here. As Professor Redish puts it, that is “itself a politicized, drawn-out process.”

Instead, he offers “another route.” He writes, “If the pardon is challenged in court, we may discover that there are, in fact, limits to the president’s pardon power after all.”

He continues, “The only effective means courts have to prevent or stop governmental violations of constitutional rights is through injunctions. But injunctions have teeth only when they have the potential of a contempt conviction behind them. In other words, in issuing an injunction, a court is saying, ‘stop doing that or else.’ The ‘or else’ is a criminal conviction for contempt, leading to a fine, imprisonment or both. Absent the ‘or else,’ the injunction is all but meaningless.”

The professor continues, explaining, “But if the president signals to government agents that there exists the likelihood of a pardon when they violate a judicial injunction that blocks his policies, he can all too easily circumvent the only effective means of enforcing constitutional restrictions on his behavior. Indeed, the president could even secretly promise a pardon to agents if they undertake illegal activity he desires."


http://www.davisvanguard.org/2017/08/analysis-can-pardon-arpaio-get-overturned/