What should be done about the MAGA terrorist threat?
- Thread starter Cuddles
- Start date
Could somebody not an uneducated hick using google as his lawyer give an opinion?
Seriously, this is a good (terrible but Trump needs special handling) idea if he can do it. Whether on not Biden does this, Trump or his successor will very likely do it next time they are entering office.You know justifying it with if Biden had been "smart" he would have.
A pardoned crime is not really "gone" when accepted it is excused. A pardon does not erase the fact that an individual was convicted of a crime and the record is not erased. It is kept separate to other non-pardoned records. The pardoned person remains forever guilty of the crime.
It has to be in writing that PRESIDENTIAL pardons cannot be reversed.
In the case of Bush it had not been accepted yet being reversed within a day when it came to light the pardon was deemed connected to GOP donations, but who says that is actually the limit?
Call them all back to prison and take a long old time getting it up through the appeals process. If the pardons are upheld by no right to reverse, no need to make law to prevent doing this again. But they will be in prison again.
Could somebody not an uneducated hick using google as his lawyer give an opinion?
Seriously, this is a good (terrible but Trump needs special handling) idea if he can do it.
A pardoned crime is not "gone" when accepted it is excused. A pardon does not erase the fact that an individual was convicted of a crime and the record is not erased. It is kept separate to other non-pardoned records. The pardoned person remains forever guilty of the crime.
It has to be in writing that PRESIDENTIAL pardons cannot be reversed.
In the case of Bush it had not been accepted yet being reversed within a day when it came to light the pardon was deemed connected to GOP donations, but who says that is actually the limit?
Call them all back to prison and take a long old time getting it up through the appeals process.
What’s the adage?, hold on to that in one hand and crap in the other, me know know which one fills up?
More TDS and the need to destroy anything he does.
I know you are but...
Seriously, appreciate any EDUCATED (or anybody not Wallet) giving their two cents on the idea. A friend thought it up the other day and its been tickling me a bit.
I know is seems implausible to conventional thinking but is is law or just long standing convention a president can't reverse an other's pardon since the law refers only the president and absolute powers are by nature usually symmetric.
Here read an article from your own
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12...on-someone-when-he-becomes-president/12937996
From Quora.. just some guys idea but I did not know about Grant. Emphasis added.
The pardons had again not been placed in the hands of the criminals but.. given that this was also the loophole in Bush's revoking.. it the need to accept the physical paper, also accepting guild without right to appeal, actually that important?
"No. At least, in the way most of us think of it. Although, there is a weird technicality in our history where it sort of did happen. I doubt it would ever repeat itself (but hey, you never know).
President Grant rescinded two pardons that Andrew Johnson had given. Here is what happened… Andrew Johnson issued the two pardons, and “sent” them. The two pardons apparently were passed through the chain of command, but when they reached the desk of the warden of the actual prison where both men were being held, the warden apparently “allowed them to sit on his desk.” They sat.
Here is a description, much better than I could describe it:
“Ulysses S. Grant's first clemency decision, on his third day in office, was to revoke two pardons granted by Andrew Johnson. Both men challenged Grant's power to do so, and lost their case in federal court. A central passage in a judicial opinion read:
“ ‘If the president can arrest the mission of the messenger went the messenger has departed but ten feet from the door of the presidential mansion, he can arrest such mission at any time before the messenger delivers the pardon to the warden of the prison.’
“The fact that "the president" - in this case - meant two different presidents (Johnson and Grant), and the fact that - in this case - the warden had actually received the pardons but simply stuck them in his desk for a while, did not matter. The pardons had not actually been placed in the hands of Moses and Jacob DePuy, so the two men stayed in prison and were pardoned (by Grant) later.”
[Me again:] So, Grant revoked them. Because, they gathered dust on a desk, on the blotter right under that copy of the Warden’s dime novel. The two men learned of it, and took it to court. The court ruled “Sorry! Stay in your cells!” Then, Grant gave them both the pardon, anyway… after awhile."
The pardons had again not been placed in the hands of the criminals but.. given that this was also the loophole in Bush's revoking.. it the need to accept the physical paper, also accepting guild without right to appeal, actually that important?
"No. At least, in the way most of us think of it. Although, there is a weird technicality in our history where it sort of did happen. I doubt it would ever repeat itself (but hey, you never know).
President Grant rescinded two pardons that Andrew Johnson had given. Here is what happened… Andrew Johnson issued the two pardons, and “sent” them. The two pardons apparently were passed through the chain of command, but when they reached the desk of the warden of the actual prison where both men were being held, the warden apparently “allowed them to sit on his desk.” They sat.
Here is a description, much better than I could describe it:
“Ulysses S. Grant's first clemency decision, on his third day in office, was to revoke two pardons granted by Andrew Johnson. Both men challenged Grant's power to do so, and lost their case in federal court. A central passage in a judicial opinion read:
“ ‘If the president can arrest the mission of the messenger went the messenger has departed but ten feet from the door of the presidential mansion, he can arrest such mission at any time before the messenger delivers the pardon to the warden of the prison.’
“The fact that "the president" - in this case - meant two different presidents (Johnson and Grant), and the fact that - in this case - the warden had actually received the pardons but simply stuck them in his desk for a while, did not matter. The pardons had not actually been placed in the hands of Moses and Jacob DePuy, so the two men stayed in prison and were pardoned (by Grant) later.”
[Me again:] So, Grant revoked them. Because, they gathered dust on a desk, on the blotter right under that copy of the Warden’s dime novel. The two men learned of it, and took it to court. The court ruled “Sorry! Stay in your cells!” Then, Grant gave them both the pardon, anyway… after awhile."
In all seriousness, if a Presidential pardon could be overturned it would have happened long long ago. Specially those who’s pardons were politically motivated.
The cases you cite were technicalities, once a criminal is set free on a pardon, you can’t put them back for the same crime.
Preemptive Pardon’s?....... I think you have a good debate there, that one would be one for the courts to decide, if it ever got there.
Trump has shown it has to be written, ANYTHING even if it is written can be challenged.
Please understand my point, convention on PRESEDENTIAL parsons (different) says not really if the pardon has been delivered but it says nothing about that in the constitution, just "the president" can grant them. If whoever happens to be president can grant, he can reverse.
I think it would be a very sweet hoist by own petard for Trump and actually help stop this wrecking of the US*. (if neutralised after).
*I'm actually fond of the old place despite everyone there probably going to hell for collective crimes, which I disagree with but you know God, he just loves collective punishment and honey traps.
Last edited:
Just my opinions:
Think of the pardon as an action, rather than a 'thing'--a thing that can be given and taken away.
The action of a pardon undoes the sentence, etc. Only a new conviction can instantiate a new sentence. The old sentence was vaporized by the pardoning action.
If I bitch-slap a Trump supporter; there is nothing that can undo, reverse, or take that slap back. The slap was an action.
Even so, available questions are: 1. Was the pardon valid? and 2. Was the pardon accepted?
If the pardon was not valid, or not accepted, then the sentence, etc. was never actually vaporized.
Think of the pardon as an action, rather than a 'thing'--a thing that can be given and taken away.
The action of a pardon undoes the sentence, etc. Only a new conviction can instantiate a new sentence. The old sentence was vaporized by the pardoning action.
If I bitch-slap a Trump supporter; there is nothing that can undo, reverse, or take that slap back. The slap was an action.
Even so, available questions are: 1. Was the pardon valid? and 2. Was the pardon accepted?
If the pardon was not valid, or not accepted, then the sentence, etc. was never actually vaporized.