« Parents gone wild: Sports & Science | Home | Rrrandy’s Pre-Post Bush Era “Bad Governors Quiz” »
Pardon my presidential pardon
By Rrrandy Wurst | December 1, 2008
The United States is supposed to be a nation of laws. This standard began to fray at the highest level when, with overblown self-regard, Richard Nixon saw himself, as president, an exception to and above the law.
Now we have a president in his waning days of power who is likely to pardon law-breakers in his administration and perhaps try to pardon even himself. If this happens, we should not expect future elected or appointed officials or their associates to obey our laws.
Senator Feinstein has stated that George Bush and his cronies should not be legally pursued because, this would be partisan politics. America has come to a sad state when the pursuit of illegal and unethical behavior is considered partisan and thus is forgiven.
Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states: “The President … shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.” This is the last and only vestige in United States law of kingly power.
In support of and justification for this piece of the Constitution Alexander Hamilton (Federalist No. 74) wrote that,
“… in seasons of insurrection or rebellion, there are often critical moments, when a well-timed offer of pardon to the insurgents or rebels may restore the tranquility of the commonwealth.”
And further,
“… a single man of prudence and good sense is better fitted… to balance the motives which may plead for and against the remission of the punishment, than any numerous body [i.e., Congress].”
Let’s take a closer look at key phrases:
- “In seasons of insurrection or rebellion”: What insurrection or rebellion? Is that why Ford pardoned Nixon, or Reagan pardoned Mark Felt and George Steinbrenner, or Poppy Bush pardoned three Iran-Contra bozos, or Clinton pardoned his brother and major financial scum-sucker Marc Rich? What insurrection or rebellion did I miss?
- “pardon to the insurgents or rebels”: What did George Steinbrenner (owner of the New York Yankees baseball team) ever rebel against? Which would make him a Rebel Without a Cause. Ditto the others.
- “Critical moments”: The only critical moment regarding these presidential pardons is that they’re done at the president’s last moments in office.
- “restore the tranquility of the commonwealth”: Whoo, boy! What tranquility? All these pardons do is piss off that portion of the citizenry who believe in justice and law.
And how about:
- “man of prudence and good sense”: Er, umm, ahh, would that be George W. Bush we’re talking about?
- “balance[d] motives”: Let’s face it. At least in modern times, the motives of these pardons have been anything but balanced. They have been personal and partisan, as in partisan politics.
Is it just me, Rrrandy Wurst, a poor Nebraska-bred porker, or do you see that the reasons for the existence of the presidential pardon have withered, warped, and otherwise cancerously mal-formed to the point where it amounts to a “Get Out (or Stay Out) of Jail Free” card issued to cronies and back-room cohorts in crime? Except for that old Nixonian Standard: “Well, of course, if the president does it, it’s not illegal.”
Congress can’t alter the Constitution without a Constitutional Convention, throwing the whole document open to revision. But our elected representatives in the House could start impeachment proceedings against the law-defyers of G. W. Bush’s administration, which is the only way to halt his power of pardoning and would have the great and necessary benefit of putting on record for the future that the Bush brand of self-serving, law-defying activities will not be tolerated. In the long run it’s less important that Bush, etc. get convicted than that an official statement be made by our lawmakers that “We ain’ta gonna take it anymore.”
Sphere: Related Content
Topics: Uncategorized | No Comments »
