Comments (99)

Anonymous wrote on July 5, 2007 11:57 AM:

I'm reading the words [paraphrasing] "harder to pass down sentences" and "President interfering with the judiical process" and thinking: Didn't Hitler in effect do the same: Make the judicial system irrelevant; and intimidate judges from enforcing the law.

Sample document: These things cannot be protected as a "state secret" when they organize illgeal activity:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/document/hossbach.htm

The comparisons between Bush and Hitler are more solid. First the President
- defies the law in waging illegal warfare; then
- retaliates against others for daring to discsuss war crimes evidence (that there was no imminent threat; and the Niger Yellow Cake was bogus); and then Bush
- destroys the sentence.

I recall the many decrees Hitler passed making the State subservient to the leadership, and the corruption of the government process: I hope others see the same is happening here. This commutation undermines US goernment law enforcement; and emboldens US government offiicals to vioalte the law.

theWalrus wrote on July 5, 2007 12:06 PM:

Is there are pattern here? Republican administrations come into power and engage in all sorts of lawlessness and highly questionable activities. Towards the end of their administrations new laws are passed to inhibit some of these political criminal activities - just as a Democratic administration is voted into office! When Republican administrations are voted back in the process begins again.

There seems to be no way to stop this.

Anonymous wrote on July 5, 2007 12:10 PM:

I read these words thinking, isn't the President's action interfering with the Judicical branch "Walton's scratching his head over Bush's move to remove the incarceration portion of the sentence while retaining the two-year period of supervised release which was to follow Libby's jail time, something not technically possible. He's asked both sides to weigh in on what should be done."

Once the President lowers the sentence to something that is technically "not possible," the judicial branch would have the power to strike down the commutation is just that: Impossible, therefore unconstitutional.

tbhull wrote on July 5, 2007 12:12 PM:

Congress should not side step the issue, either start an investigation of the administration for obstruction and/or start impeachment proceedings. A large waste of time and resources that will produce nothing.

neo1 wrote on July 5, 2007 12:13 PM:

I finally figured out what's meant by W being a 'Compassionate Conservative' -- he's compassionate towards conservatives!

Anon wrote on July 5, 2007 12:13 PM:

Please, powerful and influential people who may read this, We Absolutely Need To Pass a Constitutional Amendment To Ban the Use of Presidential Pardons. When used ethically, the good they do is pretty much just symbolic. And the harm when used by a president who just want to hide his breaking of the law is COLASSAL, TYRANNICAL, and UNJUST.

At the very least, an amendment should say that a president can only use this power in consultation with the usual sources that weigh in, and following the official guidelines for the granting of pardons.

What?! wrote on July 5, 2007 12:14 PM:

The idiocy continues unfettered...thumbs up from POTUS means "lame duck" in your face.

Law and Order/fiscal conservative/no nation building....what political party WAS that?

John H. Farr wrote on July 5, 2007 12:17 PM:

The Conyers' hearing will be awesome in its power to cause Republican witnesses to battle drowsiness. I watched the last one and couldn't believe what a wasted opportunity the whole shebang was.

Dick Heitman wrote on July 5, 2007 12:18 PM:

Is it possible that Judge Walton could resentence Scooter? His case is still pending in the judicial system, and if he is really still on probation (questionable under the law, but the Decider has declared that he is, so who is Scooter to argue?), then I would think the argument could be made that he could be returned to court for consideration of a "nonexcessive" incarceration sentence.

Jake wrote on July 5, 2007 12:25 PM:

Anon:

I don't think we need an Amendment to ban Presidential Pardons.

P.S. -- I have no problem with Democrats conducting hearings about the pardon (and less-included commutation) power -- as long as they come to the same conclusion they did with Clinton.

Dick wrote on July 5, 2007 12:27 PM:

George

Nicely done. This will keep everyone distracted while I keep shredding and my Haliburton options keep rising.

Tom Simon wrote on July 5, 2007 12:28 PM:

The Walrus describes EXACTLY the situation Thomas Jefferson argued against during the formation of the republic. Preventing the Executive from becoming a federal dictator is at the core of checks and balances. We are now engaged in a sever test of Executive power checks. The Judicial branch decisions show it may no longer be a check on the Executive ONLY the legislative branch can keep our constitutional freedoms from being lost forever.

Samsara wrote on July 5, 2007 12:29 PM:

Bush one:
Wouldn't be Prudent
Bush two:
Mustn’t be Excessive

The truth is Libby was doing exactly what he was told to do, he lied to protect his bosses, and now he will be taken care of.
A meaningless fine and probation is Harsh!!! This from a guy when Governor of Texas signed 113 death warrants and 1 clemency.
Hang em high, George.

Tom Simon wrote on July 5, 2007 12:30 PM:

The Walrus describes EXACTLY the situation Thomas Jefferson argued against during the formation of the republic. Preventing the Executive from becoming a federal dictator is at the core of checks and balances. We are now engaged in a sever test of Executive power checks. The Judicial branch decisions show it may no longer be a check on the Executive ONLY the legislative branch can keep our constitutional freedoms from being lost forever.

Tony Shifflett wrote on July 5, 2007 12:33 PM:

I intend to use this "excessive" argument every time I go to court from now on.

Remus Shepherd wrote on July 5, 2007 12:33 PM:

I don't think we need to ban presidential pardons, but possibly limiting them in some fashion would be a good idea.

Then again, maybe there is no limit that would be effective. If Libby's pardon was treated like a veto, are there enough votes in the House and Senate to override it? I don't think so. The parties gang together to support their leaders no matter how outrageously criminal they are.

The problem is not that we have one corrupt president in office. The problem is that we have one (probably one and a half) corrupt political parties in power.

gcs wrote on July 5, 2007 12:37 PM:

I don't get why anyone would "scratch their head" over Bush's actions. He thinks and acts like George III.

If Bush holding his middle finger high and proud at Congress, the law, the Constitution and the Americna people does not constitute a pattern of impeachable offenses, then nothing does. We either use the damned statute or do away with it and stop pretending we have a say in our government.

nolo wrote on July 5, 2007 12:37 PM:

interesting -- but as to the judge
walton outcome on monday -- j. at talkleft
points out that scooter gets credit
for the day he was booked into the
prison system, so he technically
has served one day. . .

she has to be right; she's an able
defense lawyer, and i bet that will
be lawrence robbins' position on
monday -- that scoots has served
a part of his sentence -- one day(!),
so he is eligible for 18 USC § 3583(a)
early release. . .

now, there are several other able
lawyers making various suggestions
that judge walton is allowed, by
statute -- 18 USC § 3583(e) -- to
impose conditions, like nights and
weekends in jail. . . but. . .

i sense those are non-starters, be-
cause they pretty plainly conflict
with the intent the president's plenary
commutation order evinced -- and he
said "no jail."

appellate criminal law whiz peter
goldberger had some thoughts on that,
over at talkleft, too. . .

so -- ahh, well -- drats.

have a happy long weekend!

click my name below, for
the trove o' links to
all of the stuff discussed, above. . .

FMarouet wrote on July 5, 2007 12:39 PM:

“Unitary executive” is simply a neocon term for “Führerprinzip.”

For elaboration, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Führerprinzip

Oh, and remember the first two counts in the verdicts delivered by the Nuremberg Tribunal on October 1, 1947 (the seventieth anniversary is approaching):

(1) Conspiracy to Wage Aggressive War

(2) Crimes Against Peace, including the launching of an aggressive war

nolo wrote on July 5, 2007 12:42 PM:

interesting -- but, as to the
judge walton july 9 stuff, i think
we have an answer -- j. at talkleft
points out that scooter gets credit
for the day he was booked into the
prison system, so he technically
has served one day. . .

she has to be right; she's an able
defense lawyer, and i bet that will
be lawrence robbins' position on
monday -- that scoots has served
a part of his sentence -- one day(!),
so he is eligible for 18 USC § 3583(a)
early release. . .

now, there are several other able
lawyers making various suggestions
that judge walton is allowed, by
statute -- 18 USC § 3583(e) -- to
impose conditions, like nights and
weekends in jail. . . but. . .

i sense those are non-starters, be-
cause they pretty plainly conflict
with the intent the president's plenary
commutation order evinced -- and he
said "no jail."

appellate criminal law whiz peter
goldberger had some thoughts on that,
over at talkleft, too. . .

so -- ahh, well -- drats.

have a happy long weekend!

interested litigant wrote on July 5, 2007 12:49 PM:

Hook, line and sinker. Your going to feel so stupid.

JNagarya wrote on July 5, 2007 12:55 PM:

The Conyers' hearing will be awesome in its power to cause Republican witnesses to battle drowsiness. I watched the last one and couldn't believe what a wasted opportunity the whole shebang was.

Posted by: John H. Farr
Date: July 5, 2007 12:17 PM

"Wasted opportunity"? You know more about what Congress is about than does Congress? Ever hear about the "perjury trap"? Ever hear of "rope-a-dope"?

I'll make a real simple point for you, in hopes it isn't out of the reach of your grasp: when there are no public hearings, so to dumbnuts such as you it appears nothing is being done, Committee staffs are conducting behind-the-scenes investigations.

In short: you don't know what you're talking about, and you don't know that you don't know what you're talking about.

JNagarya wrote on July 5, 2007 1:04 PM:

Anon:

I don't think we need an Amendment to ban Presidential Pardons.

P.S. -- I have no problem with Democrats conducting hearings about the pardon (and less-included commutation) power -- as long as they come to the same conclusion they did with Clinton.

Posted by: Jake
Date: July 5, 2007 12:25 PM

Again, liar: the REPUBLICAN-controlled Congress -- not the Democrats -- reviewed Clinton's pardons, despite the fact that the pardon power is unreviewable, and despite the fact that the REPUBLICAN-controlled Congress claimed "We never do wrong," and FOUND NOTHING.

But that REPUBLICAN-controlled Congress established the precedent: it is acceptable, to REPUBLICANS, to review pardons, therefore it is acceptable for DEMOCRATS to review pardons.

Or commutations -- which are not the same as pardons.

And let's keep in mind the relevant distinction: a misuse of the pardon power to cover up crimes is prosecutable/impeachable, the disposition of the relevant commutation/pardon being a separate issue. But, based upon existing precedent, it appears such a commutation/pardon could be nullified because based upon or in pursuit of an illegality.

Everyone here knows you are a constant liar, so your pretense that you have something credible to say is an additional lie.

JNagarya wrote on July 5, 2007 1:10 PM:

". . . . The parties gang together to support their leaders no matter how outrageously criminal they are."

False. Why do you deliberately insist on being ignorant of what is really going on? So you can appear to yourself, and other political illiterates, to be fashionably, sophisticatedly cynical?

You are dead wrong. But you contribute to the very outcome you claim to abhore.

"The problem is not that we have one corrupt president in office. The problem is that we have one (probably one and a half) corrupt political parties in power."

False. You are not only clueless; you are destructive of the social cohesion essential to a functioning democracy. You are the enemy you insist you are against.

"Posted by: Remus Shepherd
Date: July 5, 2007 12:33 PM"

JNagarya wrote on July 5, 2007 1:12 PM:

don't get why anyone would "scratch their head" over Bush's actions. He thinks and acts like George III.

If Bush holding his middle finger high and proud at Congress, the law, the Constitution and the Americna people does not constitute a pattern of impeachable offenses, then nothing does. We either use the damned statute or do away with it and stop pretending we have a say in our government.

Posted by: gcs
Date: July 5, 2007 12:37 PM

To which "statute" do you refer, Constitutional illiterate?

Jane wrote on July 5, 2007 1:19 PM:

What conditions can the Judge impose on Scooter's probation?

What can be done to prevent him from helping others to commit like crimes?

Jake wrote on July 5, 2007 1:24 PM:

If anyone has an actual case cite that Presidential pardons or (as I said, lesser-included) commutations can be "nullified" I would be very interested in obtaining that info. Thanks in advance.

eugene wrote on July 5, 2007 1:34 PM:

george w bush and his aides must be the supidest fucking guys on the face of the earth (with apologies to doug feith)

BJL wrote on July 5, 2007 1:50 PM:

Jake,

Here's a list of case law relating to Presidential Pardons. There's nothing to suggest that a pardon can be nullified. It looks like the only check on when a President can issue a pardon or commutation is in the case of impeachment. On the plus side it doesn't look like Scooter will be successful in maintaining his law license even if a full pardon comes his way later on. See the Noonan and Abrams cases.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardons4.htm

Jake wrote on July 5, 2007 1:56 PM:

According to none other than WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON (defending HIS pardons, of course):

"Article II of the Constitution gives the president broad and unreviewable power to grant "Reprieves and Pardons" for all offenses against the United States. The Supreme Court has ruled that the pardon power is granted "[t]o the [president] . . ., and it is granted without limit" (United States v. Klein). Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes declared that "[a] pardon . . . is . . . the determination of the ultimate authority that the public welfare will be better served by [the pardon] . . ." (Biddle v. Perovich)."

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/18/opinion/18CLIN.html?pagewanted=all&ei=5070&en=ec04e1c8cb40752d&ex=1183780800

poggy wrote on July 5, 2007 1:57 PM:

I think congress is barking up the wrong tree here.
Like it or not, W's commutation of Libby's sentence is legal. Congress should investigate and impeach W for the countless ILLEGAL things he's done.

gcs wrote on July 5, 2007 1:58 PM:

JNagarya, The statute to which I refer is Article II, Section 4 that can be found in a little document known as the U.S. Constitution:

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Like I said, we either use it or stop pretending we have a say in our government. Now sit down and shut the hell up, shitwad.

Heather wrote on July 5, 2007 1:58 PM:

I'm a public defender, and I rarely agree with George Bush, but he may be right that the sentence was "excessive". But it's not just Libby's setence that was excessive; it's our whole system of insane sentencing guidelines. I'm really hoping this commutation raises the public's awareness of just how long we send our citizens to prison and provokes a nationwide discussion of current guidelines.

Anonymous wrote on July 5, 2007 1:58 PM:

Posted by: Jake
Date: July 5, 2007 1:24 PM

How's this argument: Any Act of Congress or the President that is unconstitutional could be nullified. A Preident may not pardon someone when, through that Pardon, the net effect is the destruction of the Constitution.

Anonymous wrote on July 5, 2007 2:02 PM:

Posted by: Jake
Date: July 5, 2007 1:24 PM

If a Pardon were to aid an comfort an enemy -- amounting to treason -- would that not make the Pardon unconstitutional?

phil james wrote on July 5, 2007 2:02 PM:

Democrats in Congress can continue to buzz around the Bush Administration like gnats around a flyfisherman if that makes them happy. But short of impeachment, there will be absolutely no serious consequences. Bush, Cheney, Rove, Gonzo and now Scooter, can and will continue to give Congress and the American people the finger-- something they seem to take to with such exuberant gusto, until January 2009. (Tony Snow would probably be willing to admit that if the question is put to him properly.) Why? Because the Republican Bush-enablers in Congress will continue to kill any serious vote. Please note, since Bush grabbed office in 2000 there has been only one serious vote.

molly wrote on July 5, 2007 2:03 PM:

Wha 'zat sound? Shit hitting the fan.

Jake wrote on July 5, 2007 2:10 PM:

The President CAN pardon the federal crime of treason -- in fact, the Federalist (Number 74) uses that exact very example in defending the power to pardon in order to restore the peace. Next question?

Jake wrote on July 5, 2007 2:13 PM:

phil jones:

Which "one serious vote" is that? Why don't you think the Vice President losing his Chief of Staff, DoJ losing a dozen top attorneys, and the President's approval rating in the toilet are serious consequences? You want to bring back the guillotine?

Anonymous wrote on July 5, 2007 2:15 PM:

With no consequences for Atty-Libby's retaliation on CIA Agent Plame, what else is the table by way of retalation againstn US Citizens? It appears "state secret" has been invoked to hide evidence of this illegal activity. If the WH counsel/legal community thought there was a bonafide claim of privilege/state secret, there was no reason to have destroyed the RNC e-mails. It appers RNC legal counsel permitted destruction because they knew the claim of state secrets and executive was dubious, contrary to their affidavits to the court.

Anonymous wrote on July 5, 2007 2:17 PM:

Posted by: Jake
Date: July 5, 2007 2:10 PM

You asked for a citation: If the Pardon results in the destruction of the Constitution, is it Constitutional?

No.

Anonymous wrote on July 5, 2007 2:32 PM:

Posted by: Jake
Date: July 5, 2007 2:10 PM

A. Inapposite

I understand what you are saying with Federalist 74. However, that is a domestic civil war issue. Treason involves foreign powers, inapposite.

2. Commutation: Evidence of Treason in this narrow case in re Plame Outing-Benefit To Hamas

Is the act of aiding an enemy with that commutation, and the asserted/alleged assistance it gave to Hamas in identifying US CIA agents, would that not amount to treason?

Would the pardon itself support a charge of treason against Bush; or is the commutation not linked with the assisance given to Hamas, only linked with Libby? It appeares the "commutation supported Hamas" is not a credible, direct link as required. Yet, a Grand Jury could decide otherwise, epecially the one that Libby obstructed.

Arguably, Bush's Pardon -- the act of ignoring the illegal activity; and assisting Hamas by refusing to block assistance to Hamas -- was itself treason, Bush's trasonous act could be either prosecuted or impeachable.

3. Commutation of Libby Cannot Be Self-Pardon

Bush cannot pardon himself; and his issueance of a commutation of Libby does not take the "Commutation of Libby" off the table for purposes of charging Bush with treason. If the President's Pardon itself -- his action of commuation -- was deemed to be Treason, in aiding an enemy; would that not make his Pardon unconstitutional? A Grand Jury during prosecution or COngress during imepachment, not a TPM reader, would have the power to decide whether this was treason.

Bush's commutation of Libby is reviewable by a Grand Jury and COngress, as evidenced by Conyers review: If the result of his commutation advanced other illegal activity, a Gran Jury and COngress could take legal action: Prosecute and/or impeach. Whether the President assented to that legal action is a separate issue.

Anonymous wrote on July 5, 2007 2:41 PM:

Your case cited fails to consider the issue: The _court_ says it cannot review. However, _Congress_ through impeachment; and _Grand Jury_ through prosecution _can_ review the Pardon: Especially if the Congress and/or Grand Jury conclude that the President's use of his power _resulted in the destruction, nullification of the Constitution_. That is not permissible.

It is up for the Grand Jury and Congress to decide, and the Court may choose to be silent or say it is "not reviewable". If it was "not reviewable" we wouldn't have this discussion. Let the review of Bush's power continue. He can be impeached and/or prosecuted for any reason the Congress and/or Grand Jury chooses. It's up to Congress and the Grand Jury to decide if the President's assertion of his power resulted in the nullification of the Constitution; the President has no input to this decision by Congress and/or the Grand Jury.

None of the case law says, "Nobody can review something which results in the destruction of the Constitution." The Grand Jury and Congress can decide -- outside Executive review -- what is or is not "destruction" or "nullification" of the Constitution. By refusing to enforce the law and permit retaliation against others for truthful reports, the President -- with this commutation -- has made the Constitution null and void. That is unconstitutional, illegal, and impermissible. The above is for the Congress and Grand Jury to decide.

Jake wrote on July 5, 2007 2:44 PM:

That's not a "citation", no name, this is a citation:

The Supreme Court has ruled that the pardon power is granted "[t]o the [president] . . ., and it is granted without limit" United States v. Klein, 80 U.S. 128 (1871).

Please try again.

Anonymous wrote on July 5, 2007 2:48 PM:

Posted by: Jake
Date: July 5, 2007 2:44 PM

Looking for a legal argument you will agree has merit. No sense giving you a citation to a legal argument you've rejected. Let's start with the arguments first.

You haven't said which argument you would or would not support as a basis to conclude the Pardon was or was not reviewable, null, or was illegal. If you don't buy the legal theory, you're not going to buy the case or the citation. Let's start with what you might agree; then we'll work on something else.

You asked for a citation, but refuse to comment on the legal theory. We're not having a conversation. You're not being helpful to answering your _own_ question.

Jake wrote on July 5, 2007 2:49 PM:

I'm not sure if you are different "no names" at 2:32 and 2:41, but a sitting President cannot be indicted via grand jury -- of course, Bush can be impeached for no reason whatsoever (another example of an "unreviewable" exclusive power). I am also unaware of any authority that hold the President's pardon power is limited to everyone except himself.

Anonymous wrote on July 5, 2007 2:58 PM:

Libby is off the hook, the President did have the power to commute the sentence, ans will have the power to pardon eventually.

THAT DOES NOT MEAN that the President isn’t also guilty of obstruction of justice. He couldn’t be impeached for the pardon, but he could be for the cover-up it facilitates.

Further, our pathetic congress should give Scooter immunity then haul his sorry ass before one of their useless hearings and require him to commit perjury a second time. Future lies to the FBI or Congress are new crimes, I’m fairly certain the President has no authority to pardon a criminal prospectively.

Jake wrote on July 5, 2007 3:31 PM:

For the record, I am unaware of ANY limitation on the President's power to pardon -- that is indeed my "legal theory" but I can't very well prove a negative -- so, if someone is aware of a case or maybe some Constitutional Amendment I've missed, for instance, that holds the President has no authority to pardon a criminal prospectively, please let me know that as well.

Anonymous wrote on July 5, 2007 3:31 PM:

"If a Pardon were to aid an comfort an enemy -- amounting to treason -- would that not make the Pardon unconstitutional?"

The pardon itself would still be constitutional, but the President would be guilty of the separate crime of treason. The President does not immunize himself from other crimes when he abuses the power; he only immunizes the beneficiary of the pardon."

In other words, he has an unlimited right to grant the pardon, not much dispute about that. He does not have an unlimited right to commit treason through the use of the pardon.

Jake wrote on July 5, 2007 3:48 PM:

He has the unlimited right to grant himself a pardon though.

JNagarya wrote on July 5, 2007 4:04 PM:

"Congress should not side step the issue, . . . ."

Wake up and pay attention: Congress isn't sidestepping the issue. How about trying this: if you've got nothing truthful to say -- especially about Congress -- STFU.

"Posted by: tbhull
Date: July 5, 2007 12:12 PM"

JNagarya wrote on July 5, 2007 4:10 PM:

If anyone has an actual case cite that Presidential pardons or (as I said, lesser-included) commutations can be "nullified" I would be very interested in obtaining that info. Thanks in advance.

Posted by: Jake
Date: July 5, 2007 1:24 PM

There are discussions of such on "Balkinization". I guarantee you, though, if you present as here -- lying, lying, smearing, and lying -- you will be shredded.

I'm not concerned with that issue; my concern is the abuse of power by the person who granted the commutation against all evidence and legal standards, including those Bushit wants to make even more severe -- er, "harsh". so long as those subjected to such are not Republicans, regardless how deserving.

JNagarya wrote on July 5, 2007 4:17 PM:

Jake,

Here's a list of case law relating to Presidential Pardons. There's nothing to suggest that a pardon can be nullified. It looks like the only check on when a President can issue a pardon or commutation is in the case of impeachment. On the plus side it doesn't look like Scooter will be successful in maintaining his law license even if a full pardon comes his way later on. See the Noonan and Abrams cases.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardons4.htm

Posted by: BJL
Date: July 5, 2007 1:50 PM

Not all precdents concerning the pardon power are in case law. As example, the "We never do wrong" Republican-controlled Congress reviewed Clinton's pardons, even thought the pardon power is unreviewable. And they reviewed them with an eye to at minimum continuing their fraudulent smear campaign against Clinton, but also in hopes of finding something they could claim was a violation of law. They found nothing.

However, they did establish the precedent of reviewing presidential pardons; that now can be used by Congress against the AWOL cocaine-burnout dry-drunk war criminal Bushit.

Congress will be increasingly tightening the screws. Don't be surprised if in a few months proposals to cut off funding of the Executive here and there in order to compell compliance with the subpoenas are supported by sufficient Republicans to make them stick.

There is also additional history on the issue of impeachment, an interesting instance being that of Federal Judge Pickering (discussed in a thread on "Balkinization").

JNagarya wrote on July 5, 2007 4:29 PM:

According to none other than WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON (defending HIS pardons, of course):

"Article II of the Constitution gives the president broad and unreviewable power to grant "Reprieves and Pardons" for all offenses against the United States. The Supreme Court has ruled that the pardon power is granted "[t]o the [president] . . ., and it is granted without limit" (United States v. Klein). Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes declared that "[a] pardon . . . is . . . the determination of the ultimate authority that the public welfare will be better served by [the pardon] . . ." (Biddle v. Perovich)."

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/18/opinion/18CLIN.html?pagewanted=all&ei=5070&en=ec04e1c8cb40752d&ex=1183780800

Posted by: Jake
Date: July 5, 2007 1:56 PM

No one said otherwise, ass -- as you well know. No one said Bushit doesn't have the power to commute and pardon. What is being said -- and you know it, liar -- is that Bushit has abused that power with the commutation of part of the sentence of a person involved in an ongoing obstruction of justice in an issue to which Bushit himself is a party. That, to those who give a damn about reason, and thus ethics, and thus rule of law, constitutes a conflict-of-interest. Conflicts-of-interest are in no instance acceptable; and in some instances are illegal; prohibited by law.

By contrast, the requirement is that one not only not engage in impropriety but also avoid even the appearance of impropriety. And Bushit's lying about his reasons for pardoning Libby -- perpetrater/convict Libby's family has "suffered"; no apologies, or regard for the sufferings inflicted by the perpetrator upon the perpetrator's victim/s -- clearly gives the appearance of impropriety, at minimum as it goes against all the facts of the case, and all the laws which apply -- and comparable sentences thereunder -- Bushit touts and defends in all other like cases.

Your stupidity in lying against your country, against your own interests, in behalf of the domestic enemies currently controlling the Republican party, and the Executive, is genuine. Your really are a fool. But your pretended inability to comprehend those facts about Bushit's abuse of the power is a lie: you can go through all the finer points of such concerns -- even though you lie when you do -- when it concerns Clinton. But when it concerns Bushit, and other Republicans, you don't quite seem able to "get it" on the very same points.

You fool no one, "Jake".

JNagarya wrote on July 5, 2007 4:36 PM:

JNagarya, The statute to which I refer is Article II, Section 4 that can be found in a little document known as the U.S. Constitution:

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Like I said, we either use it or stop pretending we have a say in our government. Now sit down and shut the hell up, shitwad.

Posted by: gcs
Date: July 5, 2007 1:58 PM

The Constitution is not a statute. Constitutions are implemented by means of statutes, which are collectively known, as concerns the US Constitution, as the US Code.

Got that, "shitwad"?

As well, the Democrats don't (yet) have sufficient votes to impeach, ass -- the requirements governing which also appear in the Constitution. Politics is the art of the _possible_. So demanding the impossible is just plain stoopid.

Jake wrote on July 5, 2007 4:38 PM:

I see; not only am I "lying" but so is President Bush "lying" about his reasons for pardoning Libby -- thanks for clearing that up, JNagarya -- have a nice life.

JNagarya wrote on July 5, 2007 4:39 PM:

Democrats in Congress can continue to buzz around the Bush Administration like gnats around a flyfisherman if that makes them happy. But short of impeachment, there will be absolutely no serious consequences. Bush, Cheney, Rove, Gonzo and now Scooter, can and will continue to give Congress and the American people the finger-- something they seem to take to with such exuberant gusto, until January 2009. (Tony Snow would probably be willing to admit that if the question is put to him properly.) Why? Because the Republican Bush-enablers in Congress will continue to kill any serious vote. Please note, since Bush grabbed office in 2000 there has been only one serious vote.

Posted by: phil james
Date: July 5, 2007 2:02 PM

Ass: do the math: the Democrats don't (yet) have sufficient votes to impeach. the reason? Foot-dragging by the Republicans.

Stop demanding the impossible -- you won't get it; and then you'll look for someone to blame, instead of getting your head on straight.

JNagarya wrote on July 5, 2007 4:45 PM:

The President CAN pardon the federal crime of treason -- in fact, the Federalist (Number 74) uses that exact very example in defending the power to pardon in order to restore the peace. Next question?

Posted by: Jake
Date: July 5, 2007 2:10 PM

1. _The Federalist_ is an unobjective and admitted propaganda piece, written by a tiny minority of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention. It is not objective, or entirely factual. And it has no legal authority.

2. The Bushit, et al., approach to "governance," along with that of such as Clarence Thomas, is not Federalist; it is anti-Federalist.

3. You object to the fact that the same principle you reference but do not quote would apply to Clinton.

Next?

JNagarya wrote on July 5, 2007 4:50 PM:

phil jones:

Which "one serious vote" is that? Why don't you think the Vice President losing his Chief of Staff, DoJ losing a dozen top attorneys, and the President's approval rating in the toilet are serious consequences? You want to bring back the guillotine?

Posted by: Jake
Date: July 5, 2007 2:13 PM

The traditional penalty for treason is execution. The only debate is over the means to that end.

In addition, one of the penalties in the Federal prohibition against torture -- which cannot be made legal, even by use of "sighing statement" -- is death.

This country -- especially Republicans -- was once serious and sincere about complying with and enforcing of the rule of law. Thus torture is a capitol offense.

Want to keep playing around in areas in which you are unqualified, "Jake," solely to engage in smearing Democrats -- Clinton -- and defending Republicans, even when the actions by each are are identical?

JNagarya wrote on July 5, 2007 5:08 PM:

"Posted by: Jake
Date: July 5, 2007 2:10 PM

"A. Inapposite

"I understand what you are saying with Federalist 74. However, that is a domestic civil war issue. Treason involves foreign powers, inapposite."

Not necessarily. Collaborating with domestic enemies -- traitors -- would be treason. Bushit may not have been leaker in the Plame crime. But he is protecting those who did commit that treason.

"2. Commutation: Evidence of Treason in this narrow case in re Plame Outing-Benefit To Hamas"

Has nothing to do with Hamas -- howevermuch that's a favorite false punching bag. Plame's job was tracking WMDs -- specifically concerning Iran -- in order to prevent them falling into the hands of terrorists. Blowing her cover, and thus destroying those efforts, undermined national security. That is not only a direct violation of the presidential oath, it is also -- slam-dunk -- treason.

"Would the pardon [sic -- a commutation is not a pardon] itself support a charge of treason against Bush;"?

The pardon, and the person's act of granting the pardon, are distinguishable into separate questions. While it may not be possible -- separate question -- to revoke a pardon, if the person granting the pardon is doing so in order to obstruct justice, that person is subject to prosecution for the act, the obstruction of justice. (One would be hard pressed to not find at least moral grounds for revoking such a pardon.) As lying to a grand jury -- perjury -- in order to obstruct an investigation is a crime, regardless whether there is ultimately found to be an underlying crime. The focus of investigation is the truth, not vendetta and prosecution; obstructing the investigation, which might find no crime, is therefore a crime in and of itself.

Liars such as "Jake" will continually ignore that latter fact in order to repeat and repeat and repeat the lie that Libby didn't commit a crime because there was no "underlying crime". Even in the face of the fact that there is a substantiated underlying crime: Plame was in fact a covert agent; Plame was in fact exposed as a covert agentl; the law prohibiting exposing the identity of covert agents applies. There is no question whether there was an underlying crime. Libby's crime was preventing the investigation identifying those who violated the law against exposing the identity of covert agents.

"Bush cannot pardon himself; . . . ."

On what Congressional precedent or case law do you base that claim?

:Posted by:
Date: July 5, 2007 2:32 PM"

JNagarya wrote on July 5, 2007 5:15 PM:

". . . a sitting President cannot be indicted via grand jury . . . ."

Not according to the Rehnquist court. Then again, in this instance, you are referring to a Republican pretend-president, not to Clinton.

". . . . of course, Bush can be impeached for no reason whatsoever (another example of an "unreviewable" exclusive power). . . ."

What in hell are you talking about? Congress, too, can abuse its powers -- as it did with the Clinton impeachment, which was based upon nothing illegal, nothing other than politics. Impeachment is correctly described as a political process; but it must also include legitimate LEGAL issues. Again, ass: law, and politics, are not the same thing.

"I am also unaware of any authority that hold the President's pardon power is limited to everyone except himself."

Of course not: you reject ethics, beginning in this instance with conflict-of-interest.

"Posted by: Jake
Date: July 5, 2007 2:49 PM"

Jake wrote on July 5, 2007 5:19 PM:

I'm not "playing around" neither did I claim that the Federalist (Number 74) was "binding "legal authority" -- it is evidence of legislative history though -- do you think you are the only lawyer here? Your continual ad hominem and strawman arguments are an indictment of our professional.

JNagarya wrote on July 5, 2007 5:34 PM:

For the record, I am unaware of ANY limitation on the President's power to pardon -- that is indeed my "legal theory" but I can't very well prove a negative -- so, if someone is aware of a case or maybe some Constitutional Amendment I've missed, for instance, that holds the President has no authority to pardon a criminal prospectively, please let me know that as well.

Posted by: Jake
Date: July 5, 2007 3:31 PM

Asshole -- and you know this, liar -- the issue is not the pardon power, which is essentially unlimited. The issue is the abuse of it, as is clearly the fact in Bushit's commutation of Libby's jail-time -- against all the facts of the case, the facts of the law, and contrary even to the position of "his" DOJ. And throw in contradiction of his own word on the issue -- not thast his weord is worth anything to begin with. Torture is a war crime. We have the memoes signed by Bushit authorizing that war crime.

Wanna test his sincerity on the issue? Ask if he'll be cummuting the sentences of, or pardoning those, who were sentenced to 30 or more months for perjury and obstuction of justice. His answer will be (as it already has been via Tony Snow) "No". Rather, Bushit is endeavoring to make the sentencing guidline sentences even more draconian -- er, "harsh" -- for others than members of his criminal enterprise.

And what was his "reason" for commuting Libby's jail-time? Convicted criminal Libby's family "suffered" as result of his being a convicted criminal. The truth caused them "pain".

Meanwhile, neither Bushit, nor anyone else in his criminal enterprise, has done anything -- let alone apologize -- for the victim of convicted criminal Libby. Let's pardon the child-molester, and say "fuck you!" to his victim: that's the quality of Bushit's sincerity in this (and every other) issue.

Thus Bushit has used the pardon power to protect enemies of the US, including himself, against the US, and against Constitution and rule of law. To cover up and further the crime of obstruction of justice. The pardon power is essentially unlimited; but it is not a license or legal means to commit crimes, including the High Crime of treason.

Anonymous wrote on July 5, 2007 5:34 PM:

Posted by: Jake
Date: July 5, 2007 2:49 PM

There is no basis to say President's "Cannot" be prosecuted outside Congress, outside impeachment. Sittingn Presidents _may_ be prosecuted. Then Senator Ashcroft admits as such in re Clinton.

You cited nothing to support your assertion.

=========================

Discussions on Proecuting A Sittingn President

1. See: Jonathan Turley; American Criminal Law Review, Vol. 37, 2000. "From Pillar to Post": the Prosecution of American Presidents

2. Ashcroft Comments, made before He Became AG: Why would Bush nominate him as AG if these comments were reckless?

------------------------

Relevant Comments:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/paneltext090998.htm

Ashcroft [My comments]: "My first preliminary thought: the president would appear to be subject to the compulsory process of the criminal law. Put simply, the Constitution and our history appear to reflect the fundamental principle that no man is above the law. The president is subject to the law, not above it. If he violates the law, he can be prosecuted. "

Ashcroft: "But there is a second important question, and that is this: Assuming a president can be prosecuted, should he be prosecuted, when impeachment is a viable option? [Comment: It's not an option when it's "off the table"] I think not. Prudence dictates that absence extraordinary circumstances [Which we have with Bush], that when impeachment is available to address presidential misconduct, prosecution should await the resolution of the impeachment question by the Congress."

----------------------------------

Can't say "cannot" happen; can only say, "Has not happened YET."

there are two ways to impose justice on the President: Impeachment is preferred; but when Congress refuses to impeach, the prosecution option remains on the table.

Jake wrote on July 5, 2007 5:38 PM:

What Rehnquist Court decision held that a sitting President can be indicted on criminal charges?!

JNagarya wrote on July 5, 2007 5:39 PM:

He has the unlimited right to grant himself a pardon though.

Posted by: Jake
Date: July 5, 2007 3:48 PM

Substantiate.

Otherwise: ethical prohibitions against conflicts-of-interest, which that most certainly would be, and integrity, would obviate such an abuse. Even the criminal Nixon didn't try that unacceptable out.

Of course, we know we can't charge with or find Bushit guilty of being ethical, or of having integrity. Even though his own father called the illegal outing of Plame by his son and his son's fellow traitors treasonous.

Anonymous wrote on July 5, 2007 5:43 PM:

The Constitution is not a statute. Constitutions are implemented by means of statutes, which are collectively known, as concerns the US Constitution, as the US Code.

Got that, "shitwad"?

As well, the Democrats don't (yet) have sufficient votes to impeach, ass -- the requirements governing which also appear in the Constitution. Politics is the art of the _possible_. So demanding the impossible is just plain stoopid.

Posted by: JNagarya
Date: July 5, 2007 4:36 PM

-------------------------------

Joe,

I think the issue was, in general: "Was there authority . . ." If you're arguing the Constitution is not a statute, you're correct; if someone else is saying it is authority they are also correct.

I would hope that the language and tone of your remarks might consider that people on here are attepting to civilly discuss these issues. I would hope that by your legal background and training you may remember that some use different terms to essentially respond with the same spirit: To provide a contribution. I think with your leadership you can provie the example that you would expect of others.

Thank you.

------------------------

Posted by: Jake
Date: July 5, 2007 5:19 PM

From what I gather, Joe is not an attorney, but he has had some legal education. Whether he brings discredit upon the profession is one to be reviewed.

Jake wrote on July 5, 2007 5:44 PM:

That should read:

I'm not "playing around." Neither did I claim that the Federalist (Number 74) was binding "legal authority" . . .

JNagarya wrote on July 5, 2007 5:46 PM:

I see; not only am I "lying" but so is President Bush "lying" about his reasons for pardoning Libby -- thanks for clearing that up, JNagarya -- have a nice life.

Posted by: Jake
Date: July 5, 2007 4:38 PM

We've already repeatedly shown you to be a liar. The only person attempting to deny that obvious fact is the liar "Jake".

Yes, Bushit is lying about his reasons for the commutation of Libby's deserved jail-time. Will he do the same for everyone else sentenced to 30 -- or more -- months for perjury and obstruction of justice? No. In fact, he iws endeavoring to increase the penalties in the Federal sentencing guidelines.

He also acted directly opposite not only the SC's very recent decision directly on point, but also the position of "his" DOJ. And he couldn't care less about the dmage done the victims of that illegal leak, and Libby's direct role in it, and Libby perjuring himelf and obstructing justice as "substitute" for giving a damn about the damage they did also to the national security.

Bushit -- like O'Reilly -- has been repeatedly shown to be a serial liar. Lying about that fact, "Jake," won't change or obscure it; it only makes you morally complicit in the crimes and treasons about which you lie.

Why do you hate your country, "Jake"?

Anonymous wrote on July 5, 2007 5:46 PM:

Posted by: JNagarya
Date: July 5, 2007 5:08 PM

"Not necessarily. Collaborating with domestic enemies -- traitors -- would be treason. Bushit may not have been leaker in the Plame crime. But he is protecting those who did commit that treason."

------------------------

You cite nothing to support your view. Those who were involved with the Civil War -- a domestic insurrection -- were not engaged in treason.

Treason does not apply to domestic affairs, only with a foreign connection. You find the case to support your asertion -- which is wrong -- and I'll find one to support mine. You go first.

JNagarya wrote on July 5, 2007 5:59 PM:

The Constitution is not a statute. Constitutions are implemented by means of statutes, which are collectively known, as concerns the US Constitution, as the US Code.

Got that, "shitwad"?

As well, the Democrats don't (yet) have sufficient votes to impeach, ass -- the requirements governing which also appear in the Constitution. Politics is the art of the _possible_. So demanding the impossible is just plain stoopid.

Posted by: JNagarya
Date: July 5, 2007 4:36 PM

-------------------------------

"Joe,

I think the issue was, in general: "Was there authority . . .""

What has that vaguery got to do with anything?

"If you're arguing the Constitution is not a statute, you're correct; . . . ."

I'm not "arguing" anything; I'm stating a simple fact. And I don't need you irrelevant "affirmation" of that fact: it isn't a fact exclusive to me, or owned by me.

". . . if someone else is saying it is authority they are also correct."

What in hell are you talking about? What is "it"?

"I would hope that the language and tone of your remarks might consider that people on here are attepting to civilly discuss these issues."

I don't allow others to dictate to me how I use my voice, or in what terms I express my views or objective facts.

"I would hope that by your legal background and training you may remember that some use different terms to essentially respond with the same spirit: To provide a contribution. . . ."

And there are those who endeavor to support their "legal" opinions by quoting from the non-law and notoriously unreliable Wikipedia. Or by quoting from general dictionaries, when in law there are terms of art -- words and phrases which, through centuries of legal interpretation, have accreted different meanings in law than they have in non-law discourse.

"I think with your leadership you can provie the example that you would expect of others.

"Thank you."

I have no interest in "leading" anything.

------------------------

Posted by: Jake
Date: July 5, 2007 5:19 PM

"From what I gather, Joe is not an attorney, but he has had some legal education."

I have an education in law.

"Whether he brings discredit upon the profession is one to be reviewed."

You're not qualified to make any such judgments.

I am a legal professional. There is a broad range of legal professionals, only one category of which is "attorney" -- a fact of which you are clearly ignorant.

Posted by:
Date: July 5, 2007 5:43 PM

Jake wrote on July 5, 2007 6:01 PM:

Oh, I thought JNagarya had posted he was a lawyer -- thank God. In one breath, he claims the pardon power is unlimited, but the next wants me to "Substantiate" how it is limited -- as for "no name" at 5:34 pm, regardless of Turley's or even Ashcroft's opinion, the Office of Legal Counsel (upon whom the DoJ would turn to in any such attempted prosecution) has concluded repeatedly that a sitting President cannot be indicted. Impeachment is indeed available to this Congress. Just because Pelosi doesn't want to do it, or more likely you don't have the votes, doesn't mean it's not available.

Anonymous wrote on July 5, 2007 6:02 PM:

"Impeachment is correctly described as a political process; but it must also include legitimate LEGAL issues. Again, ass: law, and politics, are not the same thing."
Posted by: JNagarya
Date: July 5, 2007 5:15 PM
=========================
Substantiate.

1. Congress does not _have_ to do anything;
2. There is nothing in the constitution that tells Congress _how_ to impeach; thus there is no binding rule, only advisories which Congress may choose to ignore at whim;
3. Congress -- because it wants to -- can impeach for any reason; whether that reasoning is supported is one for the Senate to decide, and the voters to evaluate.
4. It is up to the Voters -- not you -- to decide whether that impeachment decision in the House was or was not correct;
5. One of the political goals of impeachment is to justify to the voters that the impeachment decision was correct, but this is not a legal requirement
6. Even if the voters reject the impeachment decision, or the impeachment is invalid, there is nothing that says how the impeachment "must" be carried out; or what standards.

7. Congress can invent any standard it chooses to impeach.

8. The only issue is whether the Senate -- through whatever means it wants -- agrees to convict the President of that charge. How the Senate convicts, what method, and what standards, are for the _Senate_ to decide: The criteria can be, but are not required to be, lawful.

9. As with the House, the _political_ goal of conviction in the Senate is to satisfy the voter: To show the voters that their senator made the right decision. Again, this is not required; and the Senate may vote to convict/remove, even if the Voters oppose this. Voter agreement is not required. How the voters react, or might react, does not need to be considered by the Senate. It may. there is no rule saying how the Senate _must_ do anything: It can, at any time, change a rule, and ignore precedent. The basis for conviction is for the Senate to decide, and they are not bound to anything _unless the Senate agrees_ to be bound. Like a Grand Jury, the Senate may choose to find the President's conduct unacceptable and remove him arbitrary; or they can do the opposite and choose to do nothing, despite Genocide. Whether than decision is lawful is a separate issue.

POLITICS VS. LEGAL

"Impeachment is correctly described as a political process; but it must also include legitimate LEGAL issues. Again, ass: law, and politics, are not the same thing."

Impeachment is one _legal_ option, other than prosecution, to punish the President. The President may be prosecuted by a grand jury, or impeached by the House. It is not correct to say that impeachment is _only_ a political process, but it _is_ a legal process, when compared with the prosecutions. It is a type of legal proceeding which is _not_ a normal legal/procuring. It is more correct to say it is a _legislative_ process that is _lawfully_ used.

==================

You are correct: Law and politics are not the same; but they are also not mutually exclusive.

Jake wrote on July 5, 2007 6:03 PM:

For the record, I do not hate my country.

Anonymous wrote on July 5, 2007 6:08 PM:

Posted by: Jake
Date: July 5, 2007 6:01 PM

The States are not required to honor what the OLC has said: "regardless of Turley's or even Ashcroft's opinion, the Office of Legal Counsel (upon whom the DoJ would turn to in any such attempted prosecution) has concluded repeatedly that a sitting President cannot be indicted. "

1. Untested: Its time to challenge in court the OLC position on prosecution.. To paraphrase you in re House/Pelosi/impeachment, but rewording it in re OLC, "Just because OLC doesn't like it, doesn't mean it's not available."

2. Executive Staff position, not a binding legal conclusion: OLC is an adversarial position and not the final word. Game on for prosecuting a sitting President. I understand you do not agree; but Ashcroft and others have left the option open. OLC is not a judicial-final-word, so I take the OLC position as jut that: An untested position.

I understand what you are saying, but disagree that the OLC "position" is binding. It may be challenged in court by the States. It is their view which remains to be tested. I grant you that they have a view. So do their opponents pushing for prosecution of a sitting President.

Jake wrote on July 5, 2007 6:17 PM:

What STATE charges are going to be brought against Bush? Seriously, that's the first I've ever heard of that possibility -- I've only been talking about hypothetical FEDERAL charges -- I need a good laugh though.

Anonymous wrote on July 5, 2007 6:23 PM:

"Whether he brings discredit upon the profession is one to be reviewed."
You're not qualified to make any such judgements.

I am a legal professional. There is a broad range of legal professionals, only one category of which is "attorney" -- a fact of which you are clearly ignorant.
Posted by:
Date: July 5, 2007 5:43 PM

Posted by: JNagarya
Date: July 5, 2007 5:59 PM
==============================

You have no authority to prevent others from communicating their views, judgements, and opinions. Once you make a public comment, your comment is reviewable.

1. DEFINITIONS
"legal professional" has a different meaning than "attorney" or "licensed to practice law."You know this.

2. QUESTIONS OF REPRESENTATION

The issue turns on: Whether, in asserting one is a "legal professional" they re misleading others to believe they are legally qualified to make legal, binding opinions. Not, repeat NOT saying you are misrepresenting anything. You may be, but that's not, repeat NOT the assertion. We can have beliefs and opinions about your conduct and views. "Legal professional" when contrasted with ones online conduct may raise questions about what "professional" really means. I do not find it fitting for someone to assert that they are a professional, yet they use derogatory language.

You may have a low opinion of others, but "professional" conduct will let others conduct speak for itself without the derogatory language. In that spirit, those who assert they are a "professional" yet engage in derogatory language warrant review: What is going on, is this person a professional, and if this "profession" acts like this, how does this undermine public confidence in the "legal profession." Anyone may contrast [a] their definition with [b] your conduct and arrive, after [c] a review a [d] conclusion about you, the merits of your statements, and the validity of your arguments. You may be legally correct on issues, but that does not mean the public, after a review, cannot choose to find another source, seek other counsel, or discuss the issues with someone else. Your conduct, because you assert you are a "legal professional" does not attach only to you but the "wider profession". The public has other options, especially after a review; or an attempted review is dissuaded. There are various auditing standards that apply to performance management which are relevant here.

3. REVIEW ONGOING

It is problematic to say, "You're not qualified to make any such judgments." in re "Whether he brings discredit upon the profession is one to be reviewed.": In no way can prevent anyone from discussing whether the comments can or cannot be forwarded for review. You have no legal authority to dissuade others from discussing whether the online conduct can or cannot be reviewed. Online professional conduct can be reviewed. Look: We're reviewing it. Is this not a review: Examination. How that review results, or what happens in re standards of conduct applicable is a secondary issue.

However, if one is a "legal professional" but not an attorney, one cannot have it both ways: Arguing for deference, but then saying, "But I'm not an attorney, so you can't hold me to the attorney disciplinary standards." If there are no standards applicable to the generic "legal profession", then there is no basis to assert one is a "legal professional" as that means nothing other than: You have a law degree. So what. Without enforceable standards, there is nothing compelling you to be accountable. You may be accountable; or you may not be. Compliance or non-compliance with non-existent standards is a meaningless debate.

The same standards the pubic can apply to you during their ongoing review of your conduct, statements, and professionalism may be revoked, changed, or applied however the public chooses to apply. The same goes for Libby's conduct, the Preident's commutation, or whether outside counsel have or hae not done all they should.

JNagarya wrote on July 5, 2007 6:26 PM:

"I'm not "playing around" . . . ."

Actually, you are -- but are apparently too stupid to know that is that to which your flap-jawing amounts.

"neither did I claim that the Federalist (Number 74) was "binding "legal authority" . . . ."

Didn't say you did; but you did figure it would be sufficient to get your assertions by those who you hope lack the education and critical faculties to see the game you're palying.

If you really want to make a legitimate legal argument, you won't be citing to (without quote, nonetheless) non-law in that effort.

". . . -- it is evidence of legislative history though -- do you think you are the only lawyer here?"

No, _The Federalist_ is not "evidence of legislative history," for the sufficient reasons noted -- it is not entirely honest, it is not objective, and it is a biased propaganda with the unobjective goal of "selling" the Constitution by writers who were _for_ its ratification. It is one-sided.

Nor is it "legislative history" for another reason: the Federalist papers, of which _The Federalist_ was subsequently comprised (with some changes in the original articles), was composed extra-legislatively -- outside offical law-making body -- of the views of only three (four, actually) of the 42-50+ delegates to the Constitutional Convention. We don't make laws extra-legislatively; nor do we make them out of a minority view; we make them within and by the elected legislative body.

The debates by the Framers of the Constitution, in the Convention on the record, are legislative history. The Congressional debates of that which became the Bill of Rights are legislative history. The legislative debates/record of a bill is legislative history.

Not even James Madison's _Notes_ written during the Convention while he was present as a member of it are legislative history.

"Your continual ad hominem and strawman arguments are an indictment of our professional."

Your ignorance of the basics of law reveal the fact that you not only don't know what you're talking about -- it only matters to you that it is self-serving -- but also that you are lying when you assert that you are a some sort of legal professional somehow equivalent to your unevidenced assumption about me.

Nor does your assertion that "arguments" I make are "strawman" mean anything without evidence to support the assertion.

A legal professional has an actual eductation in law, not pseudo-law talking points from the Republican party-before-country that is overtly contemptuous of the rule of law. And, a legal professional, having an actual education in actual law, beginning with the basics, doesn't assert -- false but self-serving -- "I fervently hope they are true" claims that that which has no legal authority is nonetheless "legislative history": that which is not legislative history, which includes _The Federalist_, has no legal authority. By contrast, legislative history -- of which I give examples above -- does have legal authority.

"Posted by: Jake
Date: July 5, 2007 5:19 PM"

Keep up the lying, "Jake," and I will continue to flay and autopsy the fraud you are, along with your fake concern for right and wrong and morality -- but only as concerns Democrats.

JNagarya wrote on July 5, 2007 6:38 PM:

What Rehnquist Court decision held that a sitting President can be indicted on criminal charges?!

Posted by: Jake
Date: July 5, 2007 5:38 PM

I didn't say can be indicted on criminal charges. But though the split is roughly fifty-fifty whether a sitting president can be criminally indicted -- see Nixon as "unindicted co-conspirator" -- he was unindicted only because the question of whether a sitting president could be indicted, in view of the unique power of Congress to impeach, was unsettled. However, the Rehnquist court's holding that a sitting president can be civilly sued -- which is what I said -- lowered the bar considerably, as criminal violations of law are clearly more serious -- they adversely affect the entire community -- than civil violations of a private citizen's asserted rights.

I don't at all doubt that Rehnquist would have held opposite were Clinton a Republican; but he did set the precedent for a sitting president being civilly sued, and that cannot but also apply to Republicans.

Look up "Paula Jones," as the ruling was in direct response on that issue.

Gee, and I thought you were an "expert" on every jot and tittle of Clinton wrongdoing -- especially when the LAW held AGAINST him!

It was obviously a stupid decision -- but, then again, Rehnquist was a Republican, and Clinton a Democrat, so stupidity was/is mandatory on the part of "morally superior" "Law and Order"/"No one is above the law" [except] Republicans.

Jake wrote on July 5, 2007 6:39 PM:

That must have been a different JNagarya then who posted at 4:45 pm "_The Federalist_ is an unobjective and admitted propaganda piece, written by a tiny minority of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention. It is not objective, or entirely factual. And it has no legal authority."

Have fun, Joe.

JNagarya wrote on July 5, 2007 6:49 PM:

Posted by: JNagarya
Date: July 5, 2007 5:08 PM

"Not necessarily. Collaborating with domestic enemies -- traitors -- would be treason. Bushit may not have been leaker in the Plame crime. But he is protecting those who did commit that treason."

------------------------

"You cite nothing to support your view."

I distinguish to issues, one from the other. I've already said (1) that the pardon power is essentially unlimited, and (2) whether a pardon could be revoked is a separate question from (3) whether the pardon was granted to hide or further a crime.

"Those who were involved with the Civil War -- a domestic insurrection -- were not engaged in treason."

Yes, they were: "Levying war against the United States of America". The "United States of America" is "A system of laws, and not of men" -- a legal construct -- not merely a physical geographical entity.

See also Art I., Sec. 10, I.: No State shall enter into any . . . Confederation; . . . ."

"Treason does not apply to domestic affairs, only with a foreign connection."

Levying war against the United States does not require that one do so in behalf of or in league with a foreign anything. The "United States" is first and foremost a legal construct -- a system of laws. To "levy war against" that system of laws -- as by subversion, as example -- is treason.

"You find the case to support your asertion -- which is wrong -- and I'll find one to support mine. You go first."

You go first -- I wouldn't want to spoil your mistaken certitude any more than I already have.

Posted by:
Date: July 5, 2007 5:46 PM

Until you identify yourself, you'll have as much credibility as the non-existent has a credible existence.

JNagarya wrote on July 5, 2007 6:52 PM:

That must have been a different JNagarya then who posted at 4:45 pm "_The Federalist_ is an unobjective and admitted propaganda piece, written by a tiny minority of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention. It is not objective, or entirely factual. And it has no legal authority."

Have fun, Joe.

Posted by: Jake
Date: July 5, 2007 6:39 PM

There is no contradiction in what I said about _The Federalist_, etc. Which is why you can only imply such.

Try again, liar.

Anonymous wrote on July 5, 2007 6:56 PM:

"I am a legal professional."
Posted by: JNagarya
Date: July 5, 2007 5:59 PM

===============================

Joe,

I wish to extend my appreciation to you for your time spent on this board. Whether I look favorably upon you is a separate matter. You've posted quite a bit of information over the many months, if not years, you have been active on the internet. As you read this, know this comes after having carefully considered your comments today. I would like to continue to read your _professional comments_. However, I believe we need to discuss a few things.

In my view, we have a different view of what professionalism means. Professionalism in my view means treating others with respect, being as clear as possible, and attempting to understand others. Professionalism is an attitude, and it can be measured by the word we choose, the way we speak, and how we attempt to interact with others.

I can only measure "your definition" of professionalism by your conduct. Whether your assertion of a definition matches your conduct is a secondary, but just as important issue. Your conduct suggests that your definition of "professional" leaves much to be desired from the legal community, readers of this board, and wider voting public.

If you would like to assert you are a "professional," that tells me one thing: Your actions do not speak for themselves in a manner that is consistent with the _image_ of "professional." In my view, and this is just my personal opinion, when someone says, "I am X-professional, but their conduct raises questions about their professionalism, I have lower views of their "profession" not just them. The question turns not just on their conduct, but to what extent their assertion that they are linked with a profession does or does not bring discredit upon that profession.

In my view -- and this is just my personal opinion -- your conduct on this board raises serious questions in my mind about your notion of professionalism. Whether you agree or disagree with _my personal opinion_ is irrelevant. Just because you assert you are a "legal professional" does not mean that I agree that you are a "legal professional."

In my view, legal professions are profession, respect all people, and are not insecure with themselves to the point that they insult others on a public board with rude, demeaning, and offensive language. It's not as if someone put a gun to your head an made you use the language you have. Rather, even when people attempt to assist you, respond to your questions, you appear to find a way to find fault.

That is not professional. That is abusive conduct. Again, whether you agree or disagree is meaningless to me. Whether you show by example or assertion what professionalism is, that is a secondary issue. However, when others have comments, and they take the time to respond -- at length -- to your many contradictory, weak, or unsupportable positions, too many to list -- but you throw it back at them as if it is "their" problem to "take the time" to go down the list of things _that you ask for_, that does not reflect well on you.

Rather, it sends the message: You want people to respond to you; but when they do, you will use their good faith response to your question/comment/assertion as the basis to continue with what appears to be abusive, derisive, and unprofessional conduct. That is not a statement of fact, nor an indictment of you, nor is it an allegation that you are unprofessional. Rather, in my view and this is just my personal opinion that may not be widely held, you are not someone I would seriously interact with if I needed legal advise, wanted a discussion about legal issues, or would hope to find some balanced discussion from by way of insightful commentary.

This does not mean you are stupid. Rather, it means there are other options -- besides you -- who do show civility, respect, patience, and open mindedness.
the public may not get the "exact" legal term "right on"; or perfectly respond -- as you may deem fit -- to be the "appropriate" way to structure a sentence. this is not your board to act as an editorial cut and paste. It is the TPM board; and if they choose to permit you to continue with your -- in my view -- unprofessional conduct, that is their choice; and does not reflect on them: This is you.

I accept that you have asserted you have a view that you are a "legal professional." Fine. I accept that is your assertion. However, my view, is that if you are going to comment on Libby, or the President, and use demeaning comments, then I fail to see the difference between [a] Presidential abuse; and [b] your abuse. the net effect is the same: It decreases communication; it undermines confidence in your position; and it raises questions as to whether you should or should not be formally reviewed.

Whether you agree or disagree with the above is irrelevant. the question is whether you want to change; or whether you want more of the same: People attempting to interact with you; and people trying to respond; and you attempting to apparently find fault with those who have no legal obligation to meet a "level of intelligence" or -- what appears to be -- an arbitrary definition of what should or should not be acceptable conduct on the TPM board.

You have shown great potential. You are wise. You have been highly educated. In my view, you would like to be an attorney; and perhaps you should be. I would encourage you to look within yourself and ask yourself: If the State Bar were to review your online conduct, would they agree that your conduct brings credit upon the bar; if not, what might you do to meet the standards you apparently would like others to meet.

For example, you have on occasion asked others to "substantiate" something without offering any specific idea of what would satisfy _you_: What would you like? Some people may wish to provide their view; if you would like specifics, but you are asserting yourself as a legal professional, I wonder: "Why are you asking someone to _substantiate_ an opinion"? That you would _expect_ them to substantiate is one thing; but for "their view" on pardons, commutations, or other things to be respond with "substantiate" isn't helpful. What do you want: "Proof" that something is 100% true? you're not beig clear with what you want.
That's jut an example. The point is that if you want to present yourself as a professional, I ask that you consider whether your conduct is professional; and what examples you have that would lends support that your conduct -- only as I can observe online here -- is professional. I'm not convinced you would agree that your are professional; I think you're attempting to confuse the issue of "put up with my conduct, which may or may not be professional" with "I am a legal professional."

After interacting with you, I have a lower opinion of those in the "legal profession." This is not something I imagined, but it is _your_ conduct attached to _your profession_. Only you can change your conduct. at this juncture, I will continue my review of _you_ and _your conduct_ ad leave on the table the option to _review you_ as I desire. Whether you agree or disagree that I'm "qualified" to review _your conduct_ is meaningless. The only way that _you_ can stop _my review_ of _your conduct_ is for you to _go away_. I am not asking you to leave; but you will accept that _my review_ shall continue.

You have no power to stop me; nor any authority to say that I have no basis to review _your conduct_ which, in my opinion -- and this is just my personal view, not widely held: That you are reckless, mean spirited, disrespectful, insecure, and very hurt that you are not an attorney. I cannot help you. Only _you_ can decide whether you want to respect that _others_ may have different views; and that _you_ have to be responsive for your conduct. Whether others perceive you as being professional or non professional is something you _do_ have control over.

I'm willing to have an open mind I am willing to observe, review, and oversee your conduct going forward. If you change, fine; if you choose not to change, I accept that. My position, if you do not change, then I can only conclude that you are _not_ engaging in conduct that I think meets the level of professionalism that one might reasonably expect of someone calling them a "legal professional."

I would hope that if Libby were acting the same way as you that he would have been called aside an similarly admonished. In my view, the President's commutation did not, as he should have, appropriately ensure Libby was appropriately disciplined.

You have been admonished after my review of you. I think you can improve. You can if you want. Thank your reading.

Jake wrote on July 5, 2007 6:57 PM:

For the record, now a THIRD "JNagarya" has posted at 5:15 pm "Not according to the Rehnquist court" in response to my post that "a sitting President cannot be indicted [for a crime] via grand jury . . ." Which one of these "JNagarya's" claim to be "legal professional, but not an attorney" I have lost count ; )

Jake wrote on July 5, 2007 7:05 PM:

For anyone else still interested in "legislative history" -- yes, The Federalist is "evidence" of such history -- but note that I never claimed above that it controls (or even SHOULD control) as to the issue of whether a President can pardon the federal crime of "treason." I simply noted that The Federalist (Number 74) uses that exact very example in defending the power to pardon in order to restore the peace.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_intent

Courts in the United States and elsewhere have developed a number of principles for handling such evidence of legislative intent; as an example, many courts have suggested that the comments of those opposing a bill under consideration should be treated with skepticism, on the principle that opponents of a bill may often exaggerate its practical consequences.

One early example of an important Supreme Court case which relied on legislative intent was W.O. Johnson v. Southern Pacific Co., 196 U.S. 1 (1904), where the Court decided that a man may sue the railroad for failing to have an automatic coupler since the legislature was attempting to remedy the problem of multiple injuries by railroad coupling.

Others, most notably United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, have objected generally to the use of such evidence, rather than reliance on the literal language of the statute, arguing that such evidence of "legislative intent" is often created by proponents of a bill to persuade a court to interpret the statute in a way that they were not able to persuade the legislative body to adopt when passing the bill.

If anyone other than those posting as "JNagarya" wish to continue this side discussion, please let me know.

Jake wrote on July 5, 2007 7:17 PM:

I'm sorry that anyone has a lower opinion of those of us in the "legal profession" just because of this one example, but even if one of the JNagarya's here is actually a duly admitted member of some State Bar, please know that most attorneys are NOT that unprofessional.

Anonymous wrote on July 5, 2007 7:21 PM:

Posted by: JNagarya
Date: July 5, 2007 6:49 PM

"Those who were involved with the Civil War -- a domestic insurrection -- were not engaged in treason."

Joe: Yes, they were: "Levying war against the United States of America". The "United States of America" is "A system of laws, and not of men" -- a legal construct -- not merely a physical geographical entity.

Problem:You are not citing any authority nor substantiating your claim. You are the legal professional. The public should not have to remind you how to support your arguments. If you want others to provide substantial proof, you must meet that burden as well. You have not met that burden.

Request: You said they "were" -- where's the case that shows this was the legal conclusion? You not providing one.

Conclusion: Until you provide a case citation and relevant language from the opinion, you have not substantiated _your_ assertion. Your argument fails.

------------------
Joe: See also Art I., Sec. 10, I.: No State shall enter into any . . . Confederation; . . . ."

Response: You're asserting a standard, not providing a case citation. That doesn't support your assertion. Citing standards is not evidence.
Conclusion: Until you provide a case citation and relevant language from the opinion, you have not substantiated _your_ assertion. Your argument fails.

Whether you are correct or not is a separate issue. The argument is different than the conclusion.
-----------------------
"Treason does not apply to domestic affairs, only with a foreign connection."
Joe: "Levying war against the United States does not require that one do so in behalf of or in league with a foreign anything."
Response: You have not provided a case to support your view.
Conclusion: Until you provide a case citation and relevant language from the opinion, you have not substantiated _your_ assertion. Your argument fails.
-------------------
Joe: The "United States" is first and foremost a legal construct -- a system of laws. To "levy war against" that system of laws -- as by subversion, as example -- is treason.

Response: OK, then show an example -- from the civil war -- where the Southern rebels _were_ found guilty of treason; and show that there exists "no case law" of any judge ever asserting that because it was a "domestic" issue that issues of treason do not apply.

Conclusion: Until you provide a case citation and relevant language from the opinion, you have not substantiated _your_ assertion. Your argument fails. Whether you are correct or not is a separate issue. The argument is different than the conclusion.

------------------
"You find the case to support your assertion -- which is wrong -- and I'll find one to support mine. You go first."

Joe: You go first -- I wouldn't want to spoil your mistaken certitude any more than I already have.

response: You are wrong, you provide no case, and have not met the reasonable standard of a "legal profession." You are the legal professional. The public should not have to know the law better than you. You have the burden to justify confidence. You are not showing you are able to meet the standards of either your profession, or those you impose on the public. You are admonished.
Conclusion: Until you provide a case citation and relevant language from the opinion, you have not substantiated _your_ assertion. Your argument fails. Whether you are correct or not is a separate issue. The argument is different than the conclusion.

----------------

Joe: "Until you identify yourself, you'll have as much credibility as the non-existent has a credible existence."

Response: _Your_ credibility hinges on whether you can meet the standards of your profession; and whether you show by example what you expect of others. If you want to discuss "proof" that there "was" treason with the civil war, by all means point to a case. You have not pointed to one. Your argument fails. The one calling themselves a "professional" has the burden not just with the response, but to meet that definition of professionalism: Do they or do they not meet the standard they impose on others; do they show by example what they expect; and when they do expect others to substantiate things can they reciprocate. Whether you are correct or not is a separate issue. The argument is different than the conclusion.

Adverse inference: You are not able to "substantiate" your claim; and this is a problem because you have repeatedly demanded others "substantiate" theirs. You are not meeting the standards you require of others.

You are admonished. Be professional in your responses, show citations. Without a citation you have not substantiated your assertion that "Treason" was linked with the Civil War; or that "Treason" can be linked with non-foreign-involved conduct of domestic rebels.

Your argument fails. When you act professionally and substantiate your assertions -- as you have demanded of others -- you will be called "professional." Until then, you remain under review. You have the burden of proof.

Anonymous wrote on July 5, 2007 7:44 PM:

Posted by: Jake
Date: July 5, 2007 7:05 PM

Thank you. Help me out: Could you link your discussion on "legislative intent" with the commutation of Libby, pardons, or the destruction of e-mail. Not saying you're off track; just hoping you can show how you legal expertise might focus on the issue at hand:

1. Prosecutions To Overrule Pardon

Is there a legal basis to challenge the President through a prosecution for improperly using the pardon-commutation-reprieve-clemency authority?

2. Limitations on Pardon Authority, Signing Statements

Can an improper use of pardon amount to obstruction of Justice; is not that pardon illegal if the effect of that pardon is to nullify the langauge and intent of Congress and the Supreme Law? Is it unreasonable to link the abuse of the pardon-commutation authority with signing statementes: Both achieve the same outcome: Making, in the case of Libby, the constitution null?

3. Precedent for Reckless Enforcement

Has this ever happened before in US history: A sitting President was not challenged, prosecuted, or admonished for obstructing justice, refusing to enforce the laws, and rewarding those who retaliate against other US government agents?

4. Langauge of Intent, but No Matching Funds

What is the intent of Congress when it passes a law but refuses to provide funds for that: Just because the Constitution says the President may pardon, is there a way that Congress can shut down money permitting that commutation-pardon-reprieve fro going into full effect?

5. Appropriations Tool

IS there a way the House can deny funds to anything that might have provided money to any law firm which provided funds, legal advise, or counsel to Libby in securing his apparent immunity to consequences in re obstruction, perjury, and retaliation against Plame

6. Unlawful Intent of Congrssional Bills

Is it the intent of the Congress despite their oath to defend the Constitution, to allow the President to reward people for obstructing justice; how an We the People nullify these illegal bills without "waiting for" the Judiciary to concur?

7. Unlawful Nullification of Constitution

Is there any precedent for Congress to say the intention of a President in issuing a pardon was to make the Constitution null, without effect, and meaningless?

8. Prosecuting Sitting President

Can any statute be ignored by the President on the grounds that he did "not intend" to agree with the Constitutional intent?

9. Options Other Than Impeachment, Prosecution

When impeachment is not used, what options is there to impose the intent of We the People onto a sitting President and compel him to assent to the rule of law?

10. State, Public Options To Check Abusive US Government Outside Voting

What happens when legislative intent, funding, bills, appropriations, language contradicts the Constitution, but the Judiciary refuses to strike down that bill: Why is express intent of Congress -- as measured by a bill -- which contradicts the Congress and denies Habeas not overridden by We the People by our assertion, "We shall forward all evidence of any effort to enforce this illegal at of Congress to our peers on the Grand Jury?"

11. Options to Nullify Congressional Acts Which Defy Our Will Expressed in Constitution

What is to be done when the legislative intent of Congress -- as measured by the passe of illegal MCA and unconstitutional denial of Habeas -- is not challenged by the States, Judiciary or Executive: What options do We the People -- outside Prosecutions of Members of Congress -- have in enforcing the Constitution; and compelling Members of Congress to fully assert their oath?

12. Prosecuting Members of Congress

When do we talk about prosecuting Members of Congress for their refusal to impeach; and their active efforts to block prosecutions of a sitting President?

13. Malfeasance in re Oath of office

How can Members of Congress reconcile the intent of 5 USC 3331 -- that of binding members of Congress to act, even when it is difficult -- with the contrasting assertion "It is too hard to impeach" despite the Member of Congress requirement to defend the Constitution?

14. Grand Jury Checking US Government Malfeasance in re Unlawful Congressional Intent

Is there a way for we the People through the Grand Jury process to trump Congressional intent and strike down illegal, unconstitutional bills which the Congress, Judiciary, and Executive have jointly attempted to enforce despite the violating the Constitution?

15. Amendment X: We the People, States Strike Down Illegal Bills

Can Congress ever "intend' to pass bills that defy the Constitution; if the net result of a bill nullifies a clause of the Constitution, why does the President get a "vote" on whether the "needed changes" to bring that defective bill in harmony with the Constitution; would it not make sense for we the People to ignore the Judiciary, Congress, and Executive when their conduct defies the Constitution;

16. Preserving Grand Jury Verdict Over Unawful Efforts to Nullify Constitution

What method can be used to ensure the Grand Jury findings -- that the illegal bills attache to Members of Congress, and their claim of "qualified immunity" -- is sufficient in prosecuting 5 USC 3331 oath of office violations?

Anonymous wrote on July 5, 2007 7:55 PM:

Posted by: Jake
Date: July 5, 2007 7:17 PM

Apology accepted. Thank you. All you have to do is rise above it, and show by example what you expect of others. If they fail to meet that standard of professional, they bring it on themselves.

We the People are not required to assent to abuse from the President, Congress, Judiciary, or members of the legal community.

Jake, I ask that you consider reminding your peers in the legal profession they might wish to consider what is on the table: The choice between [a] the Constitution; and [b] the President.

The time is for the legal community to accept: Congress is not going to impeach; and Members of Congress can be prosecuted for failing to defend this Constitution.

Please encourage your peers in the legal community to contact the State AG's, remind them of their oath, and work together to prosecute this sitting President. If the legal community refuses to assert their oath, We the People are prepared to conclude the legal community has failed to exhaust all options to assert their oath.

On the table is the option to defy OLC, prosecute a sitting President. if the legal community refuses, then We the People must conclude the legal professionals have chosen to remain complicity with the President's unlawful rebellion against the rule of law. The oath is binding to compel action, not be used as an excuse of "we have other things to do."

No, We the People have other Constitutions to consider: Ones that will impose legal consequences on counsel when they refuse to discipline their peers in the legal community; or they assent to legal non-sense by those in the OLC-EOP-WH- DOJ-OVP on reasons to ignore the Supreme Law, FISA, Geneva, or other Statutes.

Tie for the legal community to be confronted. If they choose to abuse We the People as some, they have a problem: We the People are able to comprehend when the legal community has failed; and when they have not fully asserted their oath. There is no statute of limitations for war crimes. We the People working with the Grand Juries are fully capable of organizing evidence to issue indictments not just against the President, OVP, legal counsel, but also Members of Congress.

if the legal community will not prosecute a sitting President,a and the Members of Congers will not impeach, We the People -- through X Amendment -- retain, and shall assert our inherent right and power to draft a New Constitution, compel assent to the rule of law, and deny to the legal professional the discretion to defy their oaths with this inaction.

Chose the Constitution and We the People. Thank you for choosing wisely. Choose the Constituion and We the People; or prepare to lose.

You shall be defeated lawfully if you choose poorly. You are outnumbered. We the People retain all non-delegated powers: the Power to Prosecute a Sitting President oustide Congerss, outside impeachment; and to target the legal community when they recklesslly refuse to assert their oath and permit the Supreme Law and Constitution to fall into disrepair.

Jake wrote on July 5, 2007 8:10 PM:

I just looked up "Legislative Intent" quickly at Wikipedia.org and provided that "link" -- obviously, I'm not providing legal advice and it is probably worth the price you paid for (I didn't practice federal law either ; )

But, off the top of my head, here goes: even if Congress tried to "defund" some exclusive Executive Power granted by the Constitution, why wouldn't Bush simply veto? Assuming they override such a veto, I doubt Bush would enforce such a law and/or take it to the Courts -- while it is a "political question" I don't see how the Courts would otherwise support Congress enfringing on the pardon power, as just one example -- what if we take the controversy out of this and say instead that Congress passes a law that appoints Rep. Murtha "Commander-in-Chief"? Even if it passed over Bush's veto, you would agree such a law is un-Constitutional, right? Of course, I haven't looked up any cases I would use for that argument, but that's where I would start.

On the impeachment questions, if Bush issued a pardon as part of some quid pro quo for a bribe, for instance, the BRIBERY itself would be a legitimate subject of an impeachment -- of course, if Congress had enough votes, they could impeach and remove Bush just because his name starts with the letter "B" -- despite what JNagarya thinks, however, there's no way DoJ is going to ever indict a sitting President.

I fully understand that many of you are convinced that Bush is not following the rule of law, but please realize that the attorneys at DoJ disagree with your legal opinion. That doesn't stop you from petitioning both the Legislative and even Executive branches to correct what you see as wrongs. In fact, even though I disagree with your conclusions, I fully support your rights to express such opinions. Now, I will have to look up "prosecuting Members of Congress" and 5 USC 3331 to answer the rest of your post, but I hope that a good start.

Jake wrote on July 5, 2007 8:19 PM:

P.S. -- I have to agree with the general proposition that "We the People are not required to assent to abuse from the President, Congress, or the Judiciary" which is why "We the People" get to elect a whole new House of Representatives and 1/3 Senate every two years -- and "We the People" can definitely call for a Constitutional Convention (just be careful what you wish for, because such a Convention will not be limited to only what YOU perceive to be wrong). What I certainly don't think "We the People" have is the right to impeach or otherwise indict sitting Presidents. There's already a procedure in place for that -- whether you like it or not -- even whether you can get the votes for it or not. And, I'm not sure what "oath" you think members of the legal community take, but it is not "To Revolt When the DNC Can't Make the Case to Impeach." Good luck with that though.

Anonymous wrote on July 5, 2007 9:07 PM:

"What I certainly don't think "We the People" have is the right to impeach or otherwise indict sitting Presidents."

We the People delegated the power of impeachment to the Congress; we retain the power to prosecute. As you know from being an attorney, the Constitution is not an exhaustive lists of rights and powers; it is merely a list of delegated powers to the US Government.

The procedure of Congress is to impeach and assert their oath _when_, as there is now, overwhelming evidence of crimes. But, when Congress _refuses_ to do what their oath compels, then there are two other options:

A. Prosecuting the President;

B. Prosecuting members of Congress who refuse to assert all options to defend the Constitution.

Unless Congress refuses to accept that prosecutions are an option -- outside Congress -- but they refuse to impeach; yet the actively thwart efforts to hold the President to account, then there isn't much to be said of the delegation of power. The aim was to inspire the Congress to use the power, not assent to lawlessness.

The DNC has the mandate, the majority of voters behind them; yet the DNC acts as if it has to get _more_ support: What "More" support does the DNC need to assert its oath than a mere promise, 5 USC 3331? The oath was to compel action when it was hard, as is now. Members of Congress can say, "I really don't want to impeach, but my oath compels me to . . . " Yet, they refuses to impeach.

Congressional inaction and, by default, a decision not to impeach, does not mean that prosecutions are off the table. Amendment X means -- when Congress refuses to assert delegated powers to fully assert their 5 USC 3331 oath o of office -- then We the People must assert our power through prosecutions.

Voting in 2008 doesn't addresses the abuses in 2007; the abuses in 2007 were supposed to have been resolved with the vote of 2006. They were not. WE were promised, in exchange for our support in 2006, the DNC full support of their oath. That the Senate might "refuse" to hold the President to account is meaningless: Let the GOP Senators explain that to _their_ Constituencies.
Contrary to the assertion that we have to work within a Constitutional Convention, WE the People can work outside the Constitution -- and simply draft a New Constitution -- then put it up for a popular vote. I reject the notion that the Amendment process or the Constitutional Convention process -- which are requirements on the Government -- would apply to We the People.

We the People could enact a New Constitution through a popular vote, outside Congress, with a full debate. I understand that not all people would agree; but then again, not all people agreed with this Constitution, but they must support it. Despite that "must support"-requirement, they refuse.

Two options: Either support and defend _this_ Constitution; or We have a New Constitution which they shall support and defend with less discretion. What's the US government -- that _refuses_ to defend the Constitution -- going to do: Compel us to assent to the Constitution they ignore; but block improvements? That makes no sense. Fat chance they'll suddenly "defend" something they have, until late, thought not worth defending because the weather was not favorable.

Let them try to stop modernization. They bring discredit upon themselves.

------------------------

Jake: [and "We the People" can definitely call for a Constitutional Convention (just be careful what you wish for, because such a Convention will not be limited to only what YOU perceive to be wrong).]

Great: Then we're having a discussion about moving beyond what has failed; and starting to talk about solutions. What is the opposition going to do -- argue for the "old" system which they've abused? That makes no sense. As with the Declaration and Magna Carta -- the list of solutions was a simple list of remedies to the defects.

There's nothing wrong with hearing the voices of opposition: At least we're moving beyond what has failed; and having a discussion about solutions and remedies to what has self-evidently not worked. If, in the end, the opposition is more powerful in arguing -- "we want to have what we have" -- their argument falls apart: Their _action_ is not consistent with what they would, in arguing for "no change", require: The old. Doesn't work that way: The GOP cannot argue "We want what isn't working," while they openly defy what they would -- in all likelihood -- assert is a requirement to avoid changes and modernizations with a New Constitution. The GOP cannot credibly assert "we want what has failed," while their actions belie that assertion. Their aim isn't so debate anything, but to avoid a discussion of anything that would call into question their legal standing in re Geneva, FISA, and their oath of office.

We the People can prosecute those who -- by the inconsistency between their actions, words, and standards -- are not credible leaders. It remains to be seen how those who [a] fail to solve problems, but [b] stick with what doesn't work, yet [c] pretend they are doing their job despite [d] not enforcing the law can [e] justify confidence in their arguments at a Constitutional convention. That's absurd.

The only way the GOP can credibly assert a defense of the existing Constitution -- to avoid a New Constution -- is if they can point to conduct which shows they were able to make the existing Constution work. That is impossible. They've defied their oaths. Indeed, how will a minority -- asserting absurdity to stick with what doesn't work -- credibly challenge those who discuss credible solutions to self-evident problems? They have but one option: More absurdity. Their justification for not improving is circular and a losing position. Their only hope is to avoid the issue. Then make them confront it: FOrce them to demand we have _this_ Constitution. Silence and the existing recklessness. Their argument and ianction are not in harmony with eachother, nor their fundamental legal obligation to defend this Constitution.

Anonymous wrote on July 5, 2007 9:22 PM:

"But, off the top of my head, here goes: even if Congress tried to "defund" some exclusive Executive Power granted by the Constitution, why wouldn't Bush simply veto?"

That's the point: When the President "vetoes" a bill -- which cuts money -- he is "blocking" a bill, but he's not _putting any money in_. He gets no bill.
That's his problem. A veto threat is meaningless: Fine, let him block the bill. His refusal to pass a bill doesn't mean he gets another bill with money. There's still no money.

House doesn't have to act. All the House has to do is say: "We aren't going to send you a bill with any money. You can't make us." If the President vetoes the bill, the President is stuck.

However, the President -- because of his mind control of the GOP-DNC leadership -- has, of late, convinced the world that the assertion of _House_ power to block funding -- by refusing to put any money in a given bill -- is somehow going to "backlash" against the DNC.

Yet, think of that: Who is the President to "offer" advise to the DNC. When the President says there "will be" a backlash.. . if that were true, would it not make sense for the President to be silent, and induce the DNC to "bring about" the very thing that would be "bad" for the DNC: and "good" for the GOP? The argument is fleeting. It makes no sense to believe anyone in the GOP when they say "there will be a backlash against the DNC" is serious: IF they were serious, they would work to _achieve_ the outcome they say would "hurt" the DNC: Get the bill blocked. But they're doing the opposite: Hoping the DNC, not the GOP blocks the bill. But if the GOP position were valid -- would it not make sense for the GOP to block the very bill,t hen blame it on the DNC? But that's not what they're doing. They're simply using the "threat of a backlash" as a ruse to dissuade the DNC to take action. That's not an argument, but a smokescreen from the real problem: TH GOP is not taking action to "bring about" the very thing that it says would be "bad" for the DNC and "good" for the GOP: No money for the President in the form of a blocked/vetoed bill.

A presidential veto of a bill doesn't create money, or put money in. It only achieves the DNC goal: Blocking funding for the President. Let the President veto the bill: He'll still get no money.

The way forward -- if the House, not the Senate -- wants to block the "effect" of a Pardon is to systematically refuse to put any money against anything related to this Pardon. The GOP Senators cannot "block" the House from doing this. The GOP, President, and Senate cannot make the House put money in a bill. The only thing the GOP in the Senate can do is _refuse_ to cooperate; but that does _not_ put money anywhere. This is the current reality which the House does not comprehend: It is more powerful than the President and Senate on issues of funding: Nothing the President, GOP, or Senate does can _put money in_ a bill Which the House agrees with get _nothing_. The Conference committee, when it "refuses to agree" will give the President what the DNC wants to give him.

There is no end to the GOP rubber stamp when the DNC is inducted to continue providing money to the President, GOP, and Senate. Things changed after November 2006. It is in the power of the House to zero-out all budget lines connected with anything that might put this pardon into effect; or reward anyone who supported the Pardon-commutation. The House is not required to "not link" their funding decisions with the President's pardon-commutation decision.

Speaker Pelosi can table all bills which might reward or support the President. She continues to choose to rubber stamp, despite her power to oppose the GOP, Senate, and President. Again: The House Speaker, if she understands the funding, is more powerful than the President. The President can only reject; he cannot force money into a bill. The House Speaker has the power to decide what goes in, or what goes out. She, in effect, has a line item Veto on any funding line she alone chooses; and there is nothing the GOP, Senate, or President can do to stop her.

Time for Pelosi to make a show of her veto of the Funding lines, and remind the world: She alone has the power to veto anything. Just as the President has no official "veto power" , so too does the Speaker not have an "official" veto power: But they both can reject things. The President's problem is that he cannot, by rejecting something, create money out of thin air. Time for the public to accept: Pelosi chooses to rubber stamp and not shut down funding to things that she could shut down.

Anonymous wrote on July 5, 2007 9:42 PM:

"there's no way DoJ is going to ever indict a sitting President."
Then they can be prosecuted; and the States may prosecute a sitting President. DoJ AG/Attys are irrelevant at this point.
---------------------
As to the argument of the House "not taking action to trump Pardon" I disagree: There is jothnign that says the Congress _cannot_ use fiscal tools to punish the President for disagreeable pardons-commutations.
--------------------
As to this example:
Jake: "Assuming they override such a veto, I doubt Bush would enforce such a law and/or take it to the Courts -- while it is a "political question" I don't see how the Courts would otherwise support Congress enfringing on the pardon power, as just one example -- what if we take the controversy out of this and say instead that Congress passes a law that appoints Rep. Murtha "Commander-in-Chief"? Even if it passed over Bush's veto, you would agree such a law is un-Constitutional, right? Of course, I haven't looked up any cases I would use for that argument, but that's where I would start."

-- The same President that ignored the Courts on FISA is going to "rely" on the Courts to stop the House from zero-ing out a budget line item? Ha! Just s the courts said in re Iraq invasion "we can't do anything," so too can the court retort, "The Congress decides the funding issue."

As to the argument, "Make Murtha Commander in Chief," they could do that: The question is whether the President will oppose that effort; and whether he would take court action.

Why not do it and see what the President does? Great idea, Jake: The President and Addington come up with all sorts of illegal ideas to defy the Law; why not let Congress do the same: Start passing more illegal bills.

Passing the illegal MCA and "Habeas ignorance act" doesn't hurt Congress. Why would passing a bill with an override possibly harm Congress if it takes power from the President?

"It's in the law" doesn't mean anything to this President: Since when is he going to stand up and say, "Hay, the Constitution says this -- let's enforce it." He's ignored it. Then Congress can do the same thing.

Whether its an illegal decision is a separate matter. But ask yourself: What is the President going to do if Congress does pass a law -- with an override -- recognizing Murtha is CINC? Just as POTUS doesn't care about the law and ignores i and Congress does nothing, why believe the GOP and President would do different?

Again, let this be a problem the President solves through his _action_, as opposed to making his argument for him, "OH, we can't do that." S