Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: freakazoid on May 22, 2019, 02:03:12 AM
-
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/21/politics/new-york-presidential-pardon-legislation/index.html
Can they even do this? Seems like this is something that they should get smacked down pretty hard for.
-
I would say no they can't, but it is typical. Whatever is needed to win right now is what they want to do. When/if Republican led states do this during a Democrat Presidential administration, they will scream bloody murder.
-
Yup, can't have the Republicans actually doing the same thing the democrats do. How many of Obama's minions refused to testify for congress? How many times did the Obama administration blow off congressional subpoenas?
-
That's a clear violation of the prohibition on double jeopardy. ;/
-
But chanting "Lock her up" is hateful and violent and stuff.
-
But its not political persecution when the dems do it....
-
I would hate to imagine the potential tyranny if some of these people ever get too much power. I could be pretty bad.
-
Double jeopardy does not apply across different states or between the feds and states.
This is still crazy. Bill of attainder maybe?
-
How many of Obama's minions refused to testify for congress? How many times did the Obama administration blow off congressional subpoenas?
If someone could actually answer this or link to a list, I would appreciate it.
All I remember is Eric Holder & Lois Lerner because they both got (and deserved) contempt citations.
-
Double jeopardy does not apply across different states or between the feds and states.
You are right, I learned something today.
-
I would hate to imagine the potential tyranny if some of these people ever get too much power. It could be pretty bad.
Quoted for truth.
(Cuts both ways, of course.)
Terry
-
. . . All I remember is Eric Holder & Lois Lerner because they both got (and deserved) contempt citations.
And the negative consequences to both of these individuals were exactly . . . what?
-
And the negative consequences to both of these individuals were exactly . . . what?
Not much.
Same as the previous couple recipients and likely the next few from the current admin that will probably get them.
In the old days, a “contempt of Congress” resolution had teeth. There were instances where Congress voted to hold figures in contempt and arrested them. But, modern contempt of Congress is seen as a little toothless. You have the legislative branch mad at someone in the executive branch.
-
Orange Man Bad.
Remember when there was talk of looking into Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich after Bill allegedly boinked his wife ?
-
Orange Man Bad.
Remember when there was talk of looking into Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich after Bill allegedly boinked his wife ?
Marc Rich was/is a scumbag who fled to a country without extradition while under indictment for some serious crimes. Him being pardoned looks a lot like quid pro quo when he was pardoned after donating over $1 million to the clintons- but as we all know, that's exactly how the clintons operate.
-
Marc Rich was/is a scumbag who fled to a country without extradition while under indictment for some serious crimes. Him being pardoned looks a lot like quid pro quo when he was pardoned after donating over $1 million to the clintons- but as we all know, that's exactly how the clintons operate.
Wasn’t there a rumor that his attractive wife visited the White House a few times? Just a rumor.
-
Wasn’t there a rumor that his attractive wife visited the White House a few times? Just a rumor.
Ah, but was it to visit Bill . . . or Hillary?
-
Double jeopardy does not apply across different states or between the feds and states.
This is still crazy. Bill of attainder maybe?
The courts have unfortunately ruled that way in the past. I would argue that the original intent of double jeopardy does in fact apply. A lot of very smart legal minds think that as well. I think Dershowitz is in that camp. If I recall correctly the Supreme Court May be considering a case now or soon that could change this as well.
-
"This new law will confront any president -- not just this one -- who thinks he or she can get away with washing away illegal behavior," said Democratic Assemblyman Joe Lentol, the bill's primary sponsor. "New York state, when it affects our state, will not tolerate that."
Yeah, right.
-
I understand New York State, helmed by Andrew Cuomo, is flexing its financial muscle by threatening to withdraw its accounts from any institutions which deal with the National Rifle Association --among others. At least that's what the NRA says.
-
Marc Rich was/is a scumbag who fled to a country without extradition while under indictment for some serious crimes. Him being pardoned looks a lot like quid pro quo when he was pardoned after donating over $1 million to the clintons- but as we all know, that's exactly how the clintons operate.
Clinton also pardoned his own brother.
-
The courts have unfortunately ruled that way in the past. I would argue that the original intent of double jeopardy does in fact apply. A lot of very smart legal minds think that as well. I think Dershowitz is in that camp. If I recall correctly the Supreme Court May be considering a case now or soon that could change this as well.
You mean the Presidential Pardon may be incorporated to the States?
-
I understand New York State, helmed by Andrew Cuomo, is flexing its financial muscle by threatening to withdraw its accounts from any institutions which deal with the National Rifle Association --among others. At least that's what the NRA says.
They're doing a bit more than that.
-
You mean the Presidential Pardon may be incorporated to the States?
Not specifically. There is a case before SCOTUS, I think it’s Gamble vs. somestateorsuch.
The case may depending on the decision make it so Double Jeopardy applies to a State and Feds charging someone for the same crime which they can do now. A lot of people think the previous SCOTUS decisions allowing separate Sovereign prosecutions is double jeopardy. Others of course disagree.
One implication is that a pardon for a Federal conviction would stop a state from separately charging. The case itself has nothing to do with pardons though. If I recall correctly the guy was charged by both a State and the Feds for gun possession by a felon or something similar.
(Edit)
This is actually the case.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamble_v._United_States
-
Here's the problem:
the increasing number of federal criminal laws
-
Not specifically. There is a case before SCOTUS, I think it’s Gamble vs. somestateorsuch.
The case may depending on the decision make it so Double Jeopardy applies to a State and Feds charging someone for the same crime which they can do now. A lot of people think the previous SCOTUS decisions allowing separate Sovereign prosecutions is double jeopardy. Others of course disagree.
One implication is that a pardon for a Federal conviction would stop a state from separately charging. The case itself has nothing to do with pardons though. If I recall correctly the guy was charged by both a State and the Feds for gun possession by a felon or something similar.
(Edit)
This is actually the case.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamble_v._United_States
I think I might even say it is double jeopardy to charge multiple crimes for the same action, but I am sure that has limits.
-
The problem is the overlap in Fed and State Crimes. It used to be that there was none. Now, so many crimes are both covered by Fed and State Statute, that you can easily face double jeopardy.
-
There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
― Ayn Rand
I used to say there was no way to drive a mile, park the car, walk a mile, get back in your car and drive another mile home without breaking five laws.
One time someone bet me he could.
"That's one," I said.
"Huh?" he said.
"Gambling is illegal," I said.
=D