More recent thread on the pardon topic:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/27/lamar-clinton/#comments

Did you notice that a Judiciary Subcommittee IS looking into Presidential pardon power? I don’t think the Terms of Use agreement allows me to impersonate anyone though.

“The lurkers” recognize your inanity, the posters who cut you down to size regularly recognize your inanity and if you think you contribute to the discourse, you’re in a decided minority.

Maybe you should give it up as “Jake”, try a new screen name and a new approach. Maybe then you’ll be able to reach the “lurkers”.

Comment by Jake — March 26, 2007 @ 7:25 pm

Another BALD FACE LIE!

—–NOTHING LESS THAN UNDER OATH AND WITH WRITTEN TRANSCRIPTS IS ACCEPTABLE OR ALLOWABLE(REMEMBER, CHIMPya and Co., WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YA LIE UNDER OATH, AS Bill Clinton FOUND OUT MUCH TO HIS DISMAY)—–

Your smiles can’t hide your LIES. I say you last less than 10% of the time Scotty McLiar and Snow Job did in this LYING role.

Why, you don’t *discuss*, you *weasel*, and argue that subverting the law is a good thing. You’re a useless old piece of sh*t – that actually thinks your *opinion* is relevant or even informed. You’re as delusional about that, as you are about your own *morality*. You lying, piece of filth.

Tariq Aziz told the world March 19 2003: “We are ready to fight the aggressors,” “American soldiers are nothing but mercenaries, and they will be defeated.” (CBS

After being captured and a guest of Gonzales & the Pentagon…

News-Max, 6/13/03: “President Bush recently remarked that Aziz “has not learned to tell the truth yet.” That’s an apparent reference to reports that the Pentagon has not gotten much out of Aziz on Iraq’s weapons and Hussein’s status.”

So while pardons are an old presidential privilege, care to explain why pretty much only GOP presidential terms require pardoning of government officials?

Or is that what you believe the Pardon is for? To protect your cronies, while you raid the American treasury for your friends at Halliburton?

Jake, you’re such a miserable little piece of sh*t.

Comment by Jake — March 26, 2007 @ 7:17 pm
#

There are, indeed, sole Executive Powers. As per Article I, Sections 2 & 3:

Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:–”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.

Regarding the powers of Congress which balance out the Commander in Chief Powers outlined in Article II: Article I, Section 8: to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; (Bush, by Executive Order, changed this right after 911 with his “illegal combatants” and how they were to be treated…unconstitutional by the way).

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; (This does not allow Congress to interfere with tactical plans, but it absolutely impacts Congress’s right to impact strategic plans.)

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; (That is, the President cannot federalize the National Guard without explicit Congressional approval).

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

As far as your “Clinton” B.S., I personally would NOT be defending Clinton had he done any of the things I am critical of the Bush administration for. I personally (and sincerely) don’t care what party label someone wears if they commit illegal, unethical or immoral acts. Wrong is wrong. Period.

Honestly, I did not even know about this from Judiciary Subcommittee Ranking Member Lamar Smith (R-TX) who today asked Former President Bill Clinton if he would be available to testify at the Democrats’ Thursday hearing on presidential pardon authority.

“Former President Clinton is no stranger to controversial pardons, most notably the pardon of Marc Rich on his last day in office,” stated Ranking Member Smith. “I can think of no better person to address this issue.”

At Thursday’s hearing of the Judiciary’s Crime Subcommittee entitled, “The Appropriate Use of the Presidential Pardoning Power,” Democrats are expected to explore what is and is not the appropriate use of pardons, despite a president’s plenary power to issue pardons.

President Clinton granted pardons or commuted the sentences of nearly 500 people, including fugitive financier Marc Rich, whose wife donated $450 thousand to the Clinton Library. Other pardons included a person accused of cocaine trafficking and a former Democratic committee chairman indicted on political corruption charges.

The Constitution gives the President the absolute authority to grant clemency, commutation, and remission of fines for offenses. Despite this absolute authority, presidents are not immune from criticism and even congressional attempts to restrict pardon authority.

“Mr. Clinton’s exercise of his pardon authority would be of real interest to Members of the Subcommittee,” concluded Smith. “I hope he will lend his expertise . . .”

An excuse a minute. Do us a favor, *fake* old timer, get a dictionary. It’s “blatant”, not “blatent”. It’s hard to imagine anyone every employed you for anything other than handing out towels in the John, or the occasional “hand” job. That would explain your habit of “Jake’ing” off on everyone here with your st*pidity.