home

A Modest Proposal, to end this Libby-Pardon Nonsense

Dear Congresscritters:

It's high time to use your "power of the purse" and your power to define the jurisdiction of the federal courts.  And, in doing so, you can cut the nads right off the whole "Pardon Libby" cottage industry the Mighty Wurlitzer of Rethug Spin has been pumping out.

I'll avoid legalese;  you'll get the point and you, Congresscritters, have the staff to draft the legalese.  

Every bill that goes out of Congress (until The Unit signs one - and he'll have to if he wants a budget), carries these three sections:

Section 1.  No funds of the United States shall be expended upon the consideration, issuance or recordation of a pardon, commutation of sentence, or any other act, however defined or denominated which would negate a plea of guilty to any criminal charge or reduce any criminal sentence, for the following classes of persons:  
(a) those persons employed in the Senior Executive Service;

(b)  those persons employed in positions defined in the "Plum Book" (that book which defines presidential appointees - the patronage list, in so many words);

©  those persons who served in a position designated as an "Assistant to the President".

Section 2.  Any pardon, commutation of sentence, or other act, as stated in Section 1 hereof, considered, issued or recorded after January 20, 2001 in relation to any person listed in subsections (a), (b) or © of section 1 hereof, shall be null and void and of no effect.

Section 3.  No judge, justice or court shall have jurisdiction to consider or rule upon any question involving or relating to any alleged pardon, commutation or act as defined in section 1 hereof which relates to any person listed in subsections (a), (b) or © of section 1 hereof, including by way of illustration but not limitation any challenge to the validity of this act.

I think this pretty well states how we deal with the "Pardon Scooter" nonsense - take away the authority to spend any government money on a pardon for Scooter, and strip the courts of jurisdiction to hear challenges.  If we want to feel merciful, we can add section 4:

Section 4.  As to any person listed in Section 1 hereof, the prohibitions set forth in Section 1 hereof shall expire twenty years and one day after the date which is the later of
(a) the date, certified by the Bureau of Prisons, upon which said person completes any sentence of incarceration or supervised release relating to the conviction for which pardon, commutation or any other act defined in Section 1 is sought; and

(b)  the date, certified by the Clerk of the District Court issuing the judgment of conviction, upon which said person has completed payment of any fine, restitution and/or monetary penalty imposed as a part of, or relative to, said judgment of conviction.

Be a man, Scooter.  Do your time.

< Nancy Pelosi: The Price Of A Soul | Calling out South Carolina. >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Uh, in case you haven't heard (1.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 04:29:17 PM EST
     The pardoning power is a CONSTITUTIONAL power and a pardon would still be valid if Bush wrote it out with a borrowed pen on the back of of a burger wrapper.

      Also, Congress can perhaps  impose limits on the Article III Courts it was empowered to create, but it can't divest the Supreme Court of jurisdiction.

    funny, I copied the jurisdiction-stripping from (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by scribe on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 08:56:48 AM EST
    the Torture Act, so beloved of Rethugs and other folks like yourself, Decon.

    And, while the power to pardon may continue to exist, the power to deny any expenditure of money on exercising it is wholly within the power of Congress.  Please remember, a pardon is also a document which must be filed in (I think) the District Court and the offices of the Secretary of State.  Denying them the funds to do that, makes the pardon a scrap of paper.

    Similarly, denying any government office funds to recognize the pardon, makes it a meaningless exercise.  Just like the budgets have done with portions of the ATF budget relating to complying with various gun-control legislation.  Another Rethug innovation, turned back on them.

    Just like Bushie called the Constitution he swore to support, uphold and defend....

    Parent

    do you really have a law degree? (1.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 11:37:16 AM EST
      You  write nonsense so often it is hard to believe.  Brilliant riposte when confronted there. Oh, I'm a Rethug (can't you at least be originally stupid?) because i call you out for inanity? Trust me, if everyone who recognized your fetish for inane babbling was a Rethug, they'd never lose an election.

      You have no idea what you are talking about. Congress CANNOT impinge uon the pardoning power.