Should Bush be allowed to preemptively pardon his administration now?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I agree with the resolution.  You can't pardon somebody preemptively.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I agree with the resolution.  You can't pardon somebody preemptively.

I wonder if Carter set a precedent by pardoning all draft-dodgers, one assumes most of them hadn't been convicted or even charged.  At least Carter would have still been president to enforce his pardon should any of them be charged, though.

And I think that was a bad (if not even illegal) call on Carter's behalf.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Indeed, but I mean, we know that such a pardon move is doable.  I wonder about the legality of preemptively pardoning everyone before they are charged, but apparently it is doable in America.

Doable and legal are 2 different things.  Honestly, who really cared about challenging a draft dodger pardon?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Indeed, but I mean, we know that such a pardon move is doable.  I wonder about the legality of preemptively pardoning everyone before they are charged, but apparently it is doable in America.

Doable and legal are 2 different things.  Honestly, who really cared about challenging a draft dodger pardon?

I think a crap ton of people cared, actually.

But anybody with the legal standing to challenge it?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Indeed, but I mean, we know that such a pardon move is doable.  I wonder about the legality of preemptively pardoning everyone before they are charged, but apparently it is doable in America.

Doable and legal are 2 different things.  Honestly, who really cared about challenging a draft dodger pardon?

     As far as I know, there is no restriction on the President's ability to grant pardons & amnesty.

It's not a restriction on his ability.  It's defining the word pardon.  In my opinion of the word, a pardon cannot exist without a charge, a conviction, and a sentence.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Indeed, but I mean, we know that such a pardon move is doable.  I wonder about the legality of preemptively pardoning everyone before they are charged, but apparently it is doable in America.

Doable and legal are 2 different things.  Honestly, who really cared about challenging a draft dodger pardon?

     As far as I know, there is no restriction on the President's ability to grant pardons & amnesty.

It's not a restriction on his ability.  It's defining the word pardon.  In my opinion of the word, a pardon cannot exist without a charge, a conviction, and a sentence.

     Yet Ford issued a pardon absolving Nixon of any crimes he committed during his presidency. Evidently that included his involvement in Watergate, as no further proceedings occurred against him, even though he hadn't been charged yet.

I honestly forgot about that (and that makes it extra sad because I did a research paper on that).  But I still say, you can't pardon somebody until they're convicted.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Indeed, but I mean, we know that such a pardon move is doable.  I wonder about the legality of preemptively pardoning everyone before they are charged, but apparently it is doable in America.

Doable and legal are 2 different things.  Honestly, who really cared about challenging a draft dodger pardon?

     As far as I know, there is no restriction on the President's ability to grant pardons & amnesty.

It's not a restriction on his ability.  It's defining the word pardon.  In my opinion of the word, a pardon cannot exist without a charge, a conviction, and a sentence.

     Yet Ford issued a pardon absolving Nixon of any crimes he committed during his presidency. Evidently that included his involvement in Watergate, as no further proceedings occurred against him, even though he hadn't been charged yet.

I honestly forgot about that (and that makes it extra sad because I did a research paper on that).  But I still say, you can't pardon somebody until they're convicted.

     But why? Nixon wasn't convicted, or even charged in the Watergate scandal as I recall. Obviously it was considered to be a valid action since he never was charged for his role in covering it up thereafter.

     Besides, I also mentioned Wilson's pardon of George Burdick, who repeatedly declined to divulge his sources in a story he broke on fraud in the collection of customs on the grounds that it would incriminate himself. Wilson pardoned him so that he could no longer use the 5th amendment's non-self incrimination clause. The case even made it to the Supreme Court, which ruled that since Burdick refused the pardon, it was null & void. They said nothing to suggest that Wilson couldn't pardon him (which they gladly would if they thought that was the case).

I think all of those cases should never have happened.  I just don't see how you can pardon without a conviction.  However, it wouldn't be the Congress's power to limit this.  It would be the Court's legal definition of the word "pardon."

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Indeed, but I mean, we know that such a pardon move is doable.  I wonder about the legality of preemptively pardoning everyone before they are charged, but apparently it is doable in America.

Doable and legal are 2 different things.  Honestly, who really cared about challenging a draft dodger pardon?

     As far as I know, there is no restriction on the President's ability to grant pardons & amnesty.

It's not a restriction on his ability.  It's defining the word pardon.  In my opinion of the word, a pardon cannot exist without a charge, a conviction, and a sentence.

     Yet Ford issued a pardon absolving Nixon of any crimes he committed during his presidency. Evidently that included his involvement in Watergate, as no further proceedings occurred against him, even though he hadn't been charged yet.

I honestly forgot about that (and that makes it extra sad because I did a research paper on that).  But I still say, you can't pardon somebody until they're convicted.

     But why? Nixon wasn't convicted, or even charged in the Watergate scandal as I recall. Obviously it was considered to be a valid action since he never was charged for his role in covering it up thereafter.

     Besides, I also mentioned Wilson's pardon of George Burdick, who repeatedly declined to divulge his sources in a story he broke on fraud in the collection of customs on the grounds that it would incriminate himself. Wilson pardoned him so that he could no longer use the 5th amendment's non-self incrimination clause. The case even made it to the Supreme Court, which ruled that since Burdick refused the pardon, it was null & void. They said nothing to suggest that Wilson couldn't pardon him (which they gladly would if they thought that was the case).

I think all of those cases should never have happened.  I just don't see how you can pardon without a conviction.  However, it wouldn't be the Congress's power to limit this.  It would be the Court's legal definition of the word "pardon."

     I know where you're coming from. I've been pushing my alternate interpretation of the 22nd amendment for years now, but I haven't had much luck influencing them.

And that interpretation is...?