Midnight Judges Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 This poll was inspired by the review of the Ford Presidency. If you were in the position to start a new democracy, would you include the option of Presidential pardons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sith lord Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 I voted no. No one, including a president, should have that much say over the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 Yes. I was only seven months old when Ford took office, but from everything I've heard and read, the pardoning of Nixon seems to have been the right decision. In a nutshell, it allowed Ford to get back to the business at hand of running the country. Was it a painful decision? Sure. Was Nixon a slimebag? I think so. Did it cost Ford politically? Absolutely. But just imagine...A politician making a decision that hurts him politically, but he makes that decision anyway for the good of the country. Refreshing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sith lord Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 Yes.I was only seven months old when Ford took office, but from everything I've heard and read, the pardoning of Nixon seems to have been the right decision. In a nutshell, it allowed Ford to get back to the business at hand of running the country. Was it a painful decision? Sure. Was Nixon a slimebag? I think so. Did it cost Ford politically? Absolutely. But just imagine...A politician making a decision that hurts him politically, but he makes that decision anyway for the good of the country. Refreshing. But what about the criminals that recieve pardons? Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't anyone be granted a pardon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 I'm a big fan of allowing the government to show leniency in special circumstances. Now, I'm not as big a fan of some of the ways pardons have been used, (especially in fiction.) I really don't think pardons were intended for the purpose of making someone immune to law. (To pick an example I'd have problems with: Clancy's Teeth of the Tiger features a "private" organization that's been created by secret Presidential order, given unlimited access to classified information, and told to go hunting terrorists with no legal restrictions whatsoever, under the authority of a stack of blank (but pre-signed) Presidential Pardons.) To me, pardons were created to allow the showing of mercy for people who've been convicted, not for purposes of creating people with no responsibility for their actions. (I voted yes. They should exist.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 But what about the criminals that recieve pardons? Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't anyone be granted a pardon? You're absolutely correct, and unfortunately, it does get abused from time to time. Course, so does everything else in the federal government, or so it seems sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskins2redskins Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 I voted yes. I do think they shouldn't be allowed to pardon just anyone thou, it should all depend on what the offense was and the circumstances behind it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanCollins Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 Yes.I was only seven months old when Ford took office, but from everything I've heard and read, the pardoning of Nixon seems to have been the right decision. In a nutshell, it allowed Ford to get back to the business at hand of running the country. Was it a painful decision? Sure. Was Nixon a slimebag? I think so. Did it cost Ford politically? Absolutely. But just imagine...A politician making a decision that hurts him politically, but he makes that decision anyway for the good of the country. Refreshing. what a bunch of HHogwash. If Nixon and Ford were democrats you'd be lambasting them both without end and you know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 If it's in the Constitution, it's okay by me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 I'm a big fan of allowing the government to show leniency in special circumstances. Now, I'm not as big a fan of some of the ways pardons have been used, (especially in fiction.) I really don't think pardons were intended for the purpose of making someone immune to law. (To pick an example I'd have problems with: Clancy's Teeth of the Tiger features a "private" organization that's been created by secret Presidential order, given unlimited access to classified information, and told to go hunting terrorists with no legal restrictions whatsoever, under the authority of a stack of blank (but pre-signed) Presidential Pardons.) To me, pardons were created to allow the showing of mercy for people who've been convicted, not for purposes of creating people with no responsibility for their actions. (I voted yes. They should exist.) Cue the big meteor coming to kill us all. This is, what, the fourth time we've agreed on something, Larry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 what a bunch of HHogwash. If Nixon and Ford were democrats you'd be lambasting them both without end and you know it. Probably so. HHogwash. :laugh: I'm stealing that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 I voted yes. If we trust a man to veto legislation, to command our military (and to give me random days off ), we should trust his judgment to pardon certain criminals. The court system is not perfect, and the pardon is a way of correcting that - governors often pardon those on death row who may have been convicted under questionable circumstances. There are also political reasons, like with Nixon, where prosecuting someone, while mandated by law, is not in the public interest. The Executive Branch is entrusted to make certain judgment calls, and pardons are just another part of that function. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 what a bunch of HHogwash. If Nixon and Ford were democrats you'd be lambasting them both without end and you know it. I supported Ford pardoning Nixon. So much that I voted for him. Twice. (I wrote him in in '80). Do you want to accuse me of being a right-wing hypocrite? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted January 2, 2007 Author Share Posted January 2, 2007 I voted no. Pardons are just begging to be abused. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Nixon basically subverted pardon law by resigning. That proved once and for all the impeachment pardon stipulatons were utterly meaningless. I don't disagree that there have been times when a pardon was appropriate, but the drawbacks by far outweigh the benefits. Pardons are anti-Democratic IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 I voted no. Pardons are just begging to be abused. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Nixon basically subverted pardon law by resigning proving once and for all the impeachment pardon stipulatons were utterly meaningless. I don't disagree that there have been times when a pardon was appropriate, but the drawbacks by far outweigh the benefits. Pardons are anti-Democratic IMO. Well we haven't yet seen a President go crazy with pardons, so history shows that absolute power actually hasn't corrupted absolutely.Pardons are most definitely anti-democratic, but so are vetoes, judicial review, filibusters, and many other hallmarks of our government ... I would argue that those anti-democratic elements are part of what makes our democracy function better than any other in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.A.C.O.L.B. Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 I'm a big fan of allowing the government to show leniency in special circumstances. Now, I'm not as big a fan of some of the ways pardons have been used, (especially in fiction.) I really don't think pardons were intended for the purpose of making someone immune to law. (To pick an example I'd have problems with: Clancy's Teeth of the Tiger features a "private" organization that's been created by secret Presidential order, given unlimited access to classified information, and told to go hunting terrorists with no legal restrictions whatsoever, under the authority of a stack of blank (but pre-signed) Presidential Pardons.) To me, pardons were created to allow the showing of mercy for people who've been convicted, not for purposes of creating people with no responsibility for their actions. (I voted yes. They should exist.) Pretty much sums up why I voted yes as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 Probably so. HHogwash. :laugh: I'm stealing that. I love the tailgate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted January 2, 2007 Author Share Posted January 2, 2007 Well we haven't yet seen a President go crazy with pardons, so history shows that absolute power actually hasn't corrupted absolutely.Pardons are most definitely anti-democratic, but so are vetoes, judicial review, filibusters, and many other hallmarks of our government ... I would argue that those anti-democratic elements are part of what makes our democracy function better than any other in the world. IMO the fact that a President can basically pardon himself has lead to more egregious interpretations of laws. Going crazy with pardons is not the only consequence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 IMO the fact that a President can basically pardon himself has lead to more egregious interpretations of laws. Give us an example, MJ. I'm not sure I understand quite what you mean here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanCollins Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 I supported Ford pardoning Nixon. So much that I voted for him. Twice. (I wrote him in in '80). Do you want to accuse me of being a right-wing hypocrite? so did I, that wasn't my point and no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted January 2, 2007 Author Share Posted January 2, 2007 Give us an example, MJ. I'm not sure I understand quite what you mean here. Nixon was going to be impeached. The constitution says a President can pardon anyone for anything, except himself for impeachment. Nixon resigned knowing full well he would be pardoned. He basically pardoned himself, thus undermining the intent of our constitution. As for more egregious interpretations of laws, just read dubya's signing statements and Alberto Gonzales' defense of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 I voted no. Pardons are just begging to be abused. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Nixon basically subverted pardon law by resigning. That proved once and for all the impeachment pardon stipulatons were utterly meaningless. Um, just out of curiosity, What "pardon law" and what "impeachment pardon stipulatons"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 I'm a big fan of allowing the government to show leniency in special circumstances. Now, I'm not as big a fan of some of the ways pardons have been used, (especially in fiction.) I really don't think pardons were intended for the purpose of making someone immune to law. (To pick an example I'd have problems with: Clancy's Teeth of the Tiger features a "private" organization that's been created by secret Presidential order, given unlimited access to classified information, and told to go hunting terrorists with no legal restrictions whatsoever, under the authority of a stack of blank (but pre-signed) Presidential Pardons.) To me, pardons were created to allow the showing of mercy for people who've been convicted, not for purposes of creating people with no responsibility for their actions. (I voted yes. They should exist.) I read that book, I hope Clancy doesn't actually think that the organization he imagined in that book would be a good idea. What a nut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 Nixon was going to be impeached. The constitution says a President can pardon anyone for anything, except himself for impeachment. Nixon resigned knowing full well he would be pardoned. He basically pardoned himself, thus undermining the intent of our constitution.As for more egregious interpretations of laws, just read dubya's signing statements and Alberto Gonzales' defense of them. Uh, Ford's pardon did not affect Nixon's impeachment in any way. Nixon's resignation rendered him immune to impeachment, because the only thing impeachment can do is remove someone from office. (Just like quitting your job renders you immune from being fired.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted January 2, 2007 Author Share Posted January 2, 2007 Um, just out of curiosity, What "pardon law" and what "impeachment pardon stipulatons"? article 2 section 2 he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. I see what you are saying but my point is this is not how pardons were intended IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.