Yes, thanks. It looks like a power easily open to abuse but one which was needed for legitimate reasons.

I’m a bit surprised that the power of pardon isn’t required to be ratified by congress though. Wouldn’t that prevent the worst abuses while leaving the field clear for worthy pardons. That would require the agreement of both Congress and Executive to overturn decisions made by the judiciary.

Still, not having recently designed a political system I’ll bow to the original decision.

As a liberal, I’m hardly bouncing off the walls over Bush commuting Scooter’s sentence. Considering all the casualties because of his incompetence in Iraq, this bit of political corruption is small potatoes. I am disgusted though.

Unlike your typical rants, this isn’t a partisan disgust. Clinton abused his right to pardon. Daddy Bush did too. I’m sure most presidents do. Still, it’s a highly corrupt act.

Naturally, Bush didn’t go through the typical motions of passing Scooter’s commutation through the Justice Department. Why? It has nothing to do with justice. Is it Bush the political coward caving into pressure from his party? Is it bare naked cronyism? Considering Plame-gate potentially touches the White House it’s clearly a conflict of interest.

There are around 3,000 people on the list seeking presidential pardons. Bush runs his pal Scooter to the top of the list. You, of course, are gleeful he did. Obviously, right-wing partisans think Scooter should get special privileges on the grounds he’s a loyal Republican. Democrats to the back of the bus?

I can’t wait for your next rant lambasting the Democrats for being soft on crime where you pound your chest about the “rule of law.” It’s all about political gamesmanship. Principle be damned.

Regards,

Dale

http://www.rideitin.com

“To the framers, the power to pardon, familiar as a power of the King of England, was necessary because the way the law was applied. In England, it was common for minor offenses to carry a sentence of death, with pardon by the King being the only way to avoid the punishment. Judges often applied a death sentence, having no choice, but at the same time applied for a Royal Pardon in the same breath. This is what Hamilton was referring to when he mentioned “necessary severity” and unfortunate guilt.”

Also:

There are several reasons for a President to issue a pardon, and they come from all sides of the political world. The pardons of President William Clinton can illustrate some of the various reasons. Clinton pardoned his brother, Roger, for obvious familial reasons. He pardoned a pair of Hasidic Jews convicted of defrauding the government, restoring their civil rights but leaving monetary penalties intact. In a controversial move, he pardoned fugitive financier Marc Rich, after application for clemency, in part, from the state of Israel, which had benefited from Rich’s philanthropic gestures. President Ford pardoned President Nixon of any wrong-doing in order to put a close to the Nixon era for good. President James Madison pardoned army deserters in an attempt to refill the military’s ranks for the War of 1812. President Abraham Lincoln pardoned all Civil War deserters on the condition that they return to their units to fight. Carter pardoned the Vietnam War draft dodgers to help in the long healing process the nation endured after that war.

Does that clarify things a bit?

And by the way Sirius, I think us crazy liberals asked the same question when Bill Clinton left office. Now you simply rail against anyone who doesn’t agree with you.

There are few things I love more than my country. Thus, the latter. It’s way way sadder.

Fitzgerald and the Judge took into account the seriousness of the original referral and properly held Libby to account for his actions related to the investigation. When Fitzgerald realized Libby had not committed the underlying crime he perjured/obstructed himself to avoid; he should have offered a reasonable plea bargain. Had the underlying crime been charged to Libby or someone else Libby tried to protect, then Fitzgerald’s harsh sentence would have been justified. Fitzgerald’s “cloud over the office of the Vice President” was hyperbole.

As President, Bush certainly has the right to pardon Libby but this disregard for the will of the majority of Americans in this situation is just business as usual for the politicians of both political parties. For too long they have generally ignored the will and views of productive, working Americans for the powerful special interests that control both political parties.

It is time to take control of Washington away from the special interests and return to a decentralized, limited federal government controlled by the voters. The best way to accomplish this is politically through the Ron Paul Campaign and by education of the American public on the benefits of direct democracy and limited confederation government like our first central government, The Articles of Confederation.

For more information, review the free, online book, “The Swiss Preserve Solution” which highlights how Swiss style confederation government and direct democracy could restore limited government to the United States. Read Restoring America’s Original Republic with the Swiss Confederation Institute at http://www.swissconfederationinstitute.org/swisspreserve41.htm

Comparing Clintons pardons to this one is way to shed light on this, but a better way of showing that Libby’s sentance truely was excessive is by comparing Clinton’s sentance for the exact same crime, lying under oath/obstruction of justice: $90,000 fine and suspension of law license in Arkansas for 5 years. No jail time - a mere slap on the wrist. Pelosi, Jackson, et all, have very short memories.