An Effort in Congress Attempts to Block Any Bush Pardons of His Administration

As Arianna reported in her Sunday Roundup, many people are speculating whether or not President Bush will grant pardons to members of his administration. Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball in Newsweek suggest that he probably won't, given that he has issued the smallest number of pardons of any president in our history. Gilbert Cranberg isn't so sure, given Bush's history of trying to shield members of his "torture team" during his presidency. Won't he want to protect them so they can't be prosecuted after he's left office?

The topic hasn't yet surfaced on the Nightly News or much on the Cable News circuit, but it has come up in Congress. The concern is that a Bush pardon would frustrate forever any attempt to make his administration accountable. If you share that concern then you should contact your representatives and ask them to support Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) who introduced H.RES. 1531, which states, as follows:

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the President of the United States should not issue pardons to senior members of his administration during the final 90 days of his term of office.

Whereas Article II, section 2, clause 1, of the Constitution of the United States provides that ''[t]he President . . . shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment'';

Whereas Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist #74, stated, ''[a]s the sense of responsibility is always strongest, in proportion as it is undivided, it may be inferred that a single man would be most ready to attend to the force of those motives which might plead for a mitigation of the rigor of the law, and least apt to yield to considerations which were calculated to shelter a fit object of its vengeance'';

Whereas the Supreme Court has observed that ''[a] pardon reaches both the punishment prescribed for the offence and the guilt of the offender; and when the pardon is full, it releases the punishment and blots out of existence the guilt, so that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offence. If granted before conviction, it prevents . . . the penalties and disabilities consequent upon conviction from attaching; if granted after conviction, it removes the penalties and disabilities, and restores him to all his civil rights; it makes him, as it were, a new man, and gives him a new credit and capacity.'' Ex Parte Garland, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 333, 380 (1866);

Whereas during the Constitutional convention, George Mason expressed the concern that a president could abuse his pardon power to ''pardon crimes which were advised by himself'' or, before indictment or conviction, ''to stop inquiry and prevent detection'';

Whereas James Madison responded to Mason's concerns by stating that ''[i]f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds [to] believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty'';

Whereas although not constitutionally binding, the Pardon Attorney's regulations governing the granting of presidential pardons states ''[n]o petition for pardon should be filed until the expiration of a waiting period of at least five years after the date of the release of the petitioner from confinement or, in case no prison sentence was imposed, until the expiration of a period of at least five years after the date of the conviction of the petitioner. Generally, no petition should be submitted by a person who is on probation, parole, or supervised release.'' 28 C.F.R. 1.2 (2000);

Whereas on President George H.W. Bush granted a full, complete, and unconditional pardon to Elliott Abrams, Duane R. Clarridge, Alan Fiers, Clair George, Robert C. McFarlane, and Caspar W. Weinberger for all offenses charged, prosecuted, or committed in connection with the Iran-Contra Scandal in which he was alleged to have been involved;

Whereas in a press conference on February 22, 2001, President George W. Bush stated, ''Should I decide to grant pardons, I will do so in a fair way. I will have the highest of high standards'';

Whereas investigations by Congressional committees, and press reports, raise serious concerns that senior officials of the administration of President George W. Bush may have committed crimes involving the mistreatment of detainees, the extraordinary rendition of individuals to countries known to engage in torture, illegal surveillance of United States citizens, unlawful leaks of classified information, obstruction of justice, political interference with the conduct of the Justice Department, and other illegal acts;

Whereas President George W. Bush has been urged to grant preemptive pardons to senior administration officials who might face criminal prosecution for actions taken in the course of their official duties; and

Whereas pardons issued during the lame duck period of a President's term would not be subject to the judgment of the voters; Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That--

(1) it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the granting of preemptive pardons by the President to senior officials of his administration for acts they may have taken in the course of their official duties is a dangerous abuse of the pardon power;

(2) it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the President should not grant preemptive pardons to senior officials in his administration for acts they may have taken in the course of their official duties;

(3) it is the sense of the House of Representatives that James Madison was correct in his observation that ''[i]f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds [to] believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty'';

(4) it is the sense of the House of Representatives that a special investigative commission, or a Select Committee be tasked with investigating possible illegal activities by senior officials of the administration of President George W. Bush, including, if necessary, any abuse of the President's pardon power; and

(5) the next Attorney General of the United States appoint an independent counsel to investigate, and, where appropriate, prosecute illegal acts by senior officials of the administration of President George W. Bush.

Comments

[deepseas]

CALL TO ACTION: Support Nadler Resolution on Bush Pardons

PLEASE SIGN THIS PETITION supporting Nadler who Introduces Resolution Opposing Possible Bush Pardons of His Own Subordinates for Crimes He Authorized

We are now at 33,000+ signatures. Please add yours and forward this message to all your contacts.

http://www.care2.com/news/member/101261184/959655

[VivaNovaChicago]

Right before this piece I read John Hallmann's Why America Feels Like It's Been Ruled By A Foreign Occupier..check it out
THEN, look up TREASON & TRAITOR in any Dictionary....OK, Think about the last 8 years under the rule of King George & the evil done to America & Americans!
We were terrorized by this bunch of thugs! Serious shades of "They Live" we sleep..
Can there be any question about the need for JUSTICE? They think they can, NO! not think they HAVE gotten away with it!!!! So far, even though.they basically raped this country, the Constitution, Civil Liberties..... so, do they go to jail for it..or..Did we asked for it? Clinton had us pretty happy there.. he got impeached for what???? Insane!
Are we awake now??? Finally paying attention? GOOD!
Think about it. After all the misery they have caused this Nation? What if any of us did half the crimes they just say "so?" to? The smugness!
Above the LAW? Yes or No!
If NO..A basic of Democracy, at least on paper... Make it stick! Poverty would be a great sentence..for all the greedy criminals of Wall St. & Detroit too!
Wouldn't that be sweet?

[mydogshakespeare]

Can Bush preemptively pardon himself?

[Chardin]

(3) it is the sense of the House of Representatives that James Madison was correct in his observation that ''[i]f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds [to] believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty'';

When?
!

[clamperken]

Yes. This is the right resolution at the right time. Although, it won't have real teeth, it will put the big spotlight on Bush. With his disapproval rating at the highest of any President to date, there is not much he can do to salvage what little "legacy " remains. If he knows just how serious Americans are about who he may pardon perhaps he won't be so fast with his pen. This may seem fruitless but it certainly beats doing nothing while Congress watches him free all his criminal accomplices.

[darker]

YES YES YES! ! !
CONGRESS MUST pass the bill to Block Any Bush Pardons of His CORRUPT Administration's CROOKS!

[thewoodywest]

The power of the pardon is absolute! Congress doesn't have power to pass any laws regarding pardons. that would take a Constitutional amendment. With all the scandals that will surely occur in the Obama administration, you don't want to tie Barack's hands regarding the pardons he will be handing out to his buddies.

[vinny]

we need an admendment then...

[metalpipe]

Trust issues?

[goodog]

I think resolve 4) and 5) should be on a separate resolution, so as not to jeopardize the first three, which would probably pass easily otherwise.

[Vyvjala]

Bush's, "The End of Daze," is near...............

[Durango]

It would probably be declared unconstitutional. A Presidents power of pardon is beyond Congressional review.

BUT: It would need to be litigated wouldn't it? Which should be a continuing embarrassment to Republicans of all stripes.

My question: Will George step down and allow Cheney to be President for an hour. So he can pardon junior?

[breakfast]

What is the point of this, beyond posturing for the folks back home? Bush will do as he damn well pleases. Anyone who thinks otherwise, just hasn't been paying attention. House Resolutions have no force. Hasn't anyone in the Congress read the Constitution, even once?

[RGKahn]

Article II Section 2 paragraph 1 "...and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." The only way this power may be changed or regulated or in any way controlled is by an amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. Article Five of the U.S. Constitution states in part "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on
the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part
of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States..."

[research]

Impeach them after they leave office, that invalidates the pardons.

[Nclghtning]

I assume you mean a subsequent conviction. Impeachment itself certainly would not invalidate pardons although a president may lose his pardon power while in the midst of an impeachment proceeding. . I am aware that an impeachment and conviction of a president after office can prevent him from receiving his pension and from possibly holding some future office but I don't think it would invalidate pre-conviction pardons not connected with an underlying reason for impeachment. Just my two cents.

[ESerafina42]

Thank you. This is NOT a bill. Only a "sense of the House" resolution like the ones saying that X (whatever group they're attempting to curry favor with at the moment) are wonderful people and vital to the survival of the nation, MoveOn.org is evil, or the US is a Christian nation. In other words, in the real world their effect is nil. Zilch. Nada. Anyway, even if it were constitutional, which it's not, it would have to be signed by the President or vetoed and overridden.

[Yermammy]

I beam with pride, knowing there are people like you, Mr. Latt. You're what makes America a good place and I applaud your patriotism! I'm usually harshly critical of most people, but you are exceptional. I'm aware of this bill and have already happily signed the petition, but it's wonderful to see that you care about this as much as some of us. Godspeed and good fortune, Mr. Latt.

[Village]

They haven't invaded Iran. Count your freakin' blessings.

[Yermammy]

Two months is a loooonnng time. Israel is biting at the bit. If they hobble President Obama with that flagrant aggression, I expect him to drop them like a bad habit.

[Jesster]

Well at least my biggest fear has not come to pass: I was genuinely afraid that at some point Bush/Cheney would do something catastophically reckless, disaster would follow, Bush would declare Martial Law and "postpone" (cancel) the election.)

That was something I actually could imagine happening. These thugs have made me THAT cynical.

[1099]

That's not called cynicism. It's called paranoia.

[Durango]

No matter how cynical you may be.

You are not cynical enough for these fools.

[kathy001]

1099 is right, that's paranoia - and I had a bad case of it, too. Although, I still believe that it really was a possibility and had the American people not shown that they simply would not stand for it, I believe it really might have happened. If we had continued to be the same "sheeple" that let the Bush administration walk all over our civil rights for 7 long years, it might have happened. However, the movement behind Obama was so strong and so determined and so knowledgable (you know, knowledge is the bane of dictators) that they never would have been able to get away with it.

[Yermammy]

Don't you see? They already did. It's called TARP. The gift that keeps on taking.

[JulieSA]

That's crazy.

[ESerafina42]

I hate to burst your bubble, Jesster, but they're still in office for another 50-some days. Don't relax yet.

[jeniferdaniels]

thank God