Posted on 07/22/2007 10:12:02 AM PDT by DogByte6RER
Bill would de-fund two agents' prison terms
July 21, 2007
By Jerry Seper - A Republican congressman yesterday said he will offer an amendment to an annual spending bill to prevent the Bush administration from using funds to enforce the prison sentences of two U.S. Border Patrol agents.
Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado said the amendment would force the release of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean, who were sentenced to 11- and 12-year prison terms for shooting a fleeing drug-smuggling suspect in the buttocks.
"Americans have been waiting months for the president to right this wrong and I am not going to wait any longer," said Mr. Tancredo, a candidate for president in 2008. "It's time that the Congress took matters into its own hands.
"This kangaroo court in Texas has made a decision, but Congress is under no obligation to provide the administration with the funds they need to enforce it," he said.
Also yesterday, Rep. John Culberson, Texas Republican, and 20 House colleagues sent a letter to President Bush asking that he immediately commute the sentences of the agents, saying they were "unjustly prosecuted for doing their job."
"It is unacceptable that a federal prosecutor would take the word of a known drug smuggler over the testimony of two officers protecting our country," Mr. Culberson said. "This case has created a chilling effect along the border, and law-enforcement personnel tell me they are now hesitant to draw their weapons."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
From the artcile, the others who signed the letter to President Bush for the commutation of both Ramos and Compean are:
Texas Reps. Michael C. Burgess, John Carter, Michael K. Conaway, Louie Gohmert, Kay Granger, Ralph M. Hall, Kenny Marchant, Michael McCaul, Pete Sessions and Ted Poe; California Reps. Brian P. Bilbray, Wally Herger, Dana Rohrabacher and Ed Royce; and Reps. Mary Fallin of Oklahoma, Virgil H. Goode Jr. of Virginia, Walter B. Jones of North Carolina, Mike Rogers of Michigan, Cliff Stearns of Florida and Joe Wilson of South Carolina.
This appears to be a violation of the separation of powers. It is exactly the sort of thing that we decry when done by the judiciary.
Can Congress really “de-fund” the prison sentences of specific individuals? Even if it’s warranted in this case, I’m not sure I like the precedent; imagine the possibilities.
This seems like a slippery slope. We bitch and moan that the Dims can’t prosecute a war by committee and then one of our own does essentially the same thing.
Why doesn’t Bush just commute their sentences?
How else do you get through to someone who has a skull as thick as Bush?
I’d say this effort has severe constitutional flaws.
No, No, No, No.
No matter how noble the goal may be, we cannot allow this.
Our elected officials have no clue about the constitution.
I think you’re right. Dumb stunt on Tancredo’s part.
In this case it needs to be done, and should be far more often. No less than Justice A. Kennedy recently said that many of the mandatory have gone way over the top. The pardon was established for such purposes but, as he made sure to point out, it’s not being used. Something needs to be done to establish a fair system and if this is the way to start, then it’s a start.
Why not have these guys re-sentenced to time-served? The cops aren't supposed to shoot somebody who is running, but it appears to me that they aren't guilty of anything more than assault. (If it were attempted murder, it would've been a head or back shot.)
If you look at the sentences and/or penalties handed out to police officers for assault or a non-fatal shooting that violated policy, I'll bet the farm that they didn't get 12-year sentences. I've seen cops do a lot worse and get a fine, probation, and firing from the police force.
Federal Minimum Sentencing Guidelines. That’s the true problem.
Sometimes they go to Atlanta and shoot old women.
Congress holds the purse. This is exactly how it’s supposed to work - according to the Constitution itself!
Then let Tancredo offer legislation to reduce the mandatory sentencing minimums. This is nothing more than a stunt, and one that isn't even grounded in the Constitution (or common sense) at that.
What would it take for Bush to just step in and say, look, the 10-year enhancement for using a gun doesn’t apply to law enforcement doing their jobs. I’m throwing that part of their sentence out. That leaves a 1-year and a 2-year sentence, with part of that time already served, and with good behavior and the proven fact that they are in danger and being inadequately protected while in prison, I think it’s time to let these men go with a written citation. That is, if my good dear friend and upstanding guy Johnny Sutton lets me do that. I’ll have to clear it with him first.
Tancredo needs to find another avenue to get this done or he'll be opening the floodgates to a bunch of DemonRats who already connive with organizations whose only job 24/7 is to find avenues like this to force agendas on unwilling people and state/local governments.
Be careful what you wish for, Mr. Tancredo. You won't like it when the Congressional DemonRats start freeing environmental "activists" (that is, domestic terrorists) who burn down ski areas and SUV dealerships, coke dealers who stuff campaign coffers with laundered money, and illegal aliens who deal drugs, live in gangs, and commit identity theft.
Maybe the MSM could take up a collection from KC, Juan, Dan Rather, et. al. to help pay for the continued incarceration.
This will just start another Terry thing all over again, which in the end will fail anyways.
Like everyone else in the country says, What the hell is wrong with Bush? Why is he being such a dickhead about this?
Pardon them and be done with it. Unless he’s trying to see how low in the poles he can go on purpose, or really is as dumb as everyone says.
No. Congress cannot pass laws regarding one single citizen. An amendment may be some sort of BS loophole though.
The Constitution is quite clear that the power to allocate and spend any Federal funds whatsoever resides solely and exclusively with the House of Representatives. The House has full Constitutional authority to prohibit any spending of Federal funds they may desire to avoid.
From Article I, section 9 (all of Article I concerns the structure, function and powers of Congress): "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time."
You think it's a good idea for Congress to fund or defund an individual prison sentence?
I guess you see the rail-roading of two Border Patrol agents as grounded in the Constitutional. Fact is, de-funding spending measures is part of any budget process.
Come on. This is part of Cong Tancredo`s signature issue. While Tancredo may be employing unique legislative tactics --- as he says, "although his approach is "unconventional, it is not unprecedented." --- he's fighting an uphill battle. Tancredo is drawing attention to a situation that many on the left and right agree, was an injustice carried out against two American citizens. To call this underhanded, however, is ridiculous.
You should be chastising Pres Bush and his good buddy federal prosecutor Johnny Sutton, as you cheer on Cong Tancredo is this case.
My best guess...is that the constitution doesn’t forbid congress from de-funding something. This is something that Jefferson nor Franklin would have ever conceived in 1776. As for how legal it would be...since this hasn’t ever been done...it would certainly toss Bush’s administration into a loop and I can see Attorney General spending days and days trying to figure out how to get around congress. The real problem here is that one law already says the two guys have to go to prison...although the law simply assumes that cash is always there to run the prison...which one ought to assume this would be true.
Personally....I think the Bush Administration has screwed up alot over the past two years and this type of action is necessary.
So if the Congressional Black Caucus tries to de-fund the prison sentence of somebody like Mumia Abu-Jamal, that'd be okay with you?
You know what? It might be. Why couldn't it be?
"Constitutional" is not a synonym for "the right thing to do". Nor is "the wrong thing to do" a synonym for "unconstitutional". Maybe this railroading was wrong, and shouldn't have been done, but all the procedures involved were perfectly in accordance with the Constitution. You speak as if that's not possible. Surely it is.
Highly doubtful it would make it through the legislative process. Instead of engaging in pure sophistry, try speaking out against the injustice carried out by the federal government against two American citizens who were doing their jobs. These two men were enforcing US immigration laws and protecting our southern border. Johnny Sutton and George W. Bush both need a good butt kicking.
No--but I wouldn't be claiming it was Unconstitutional just because I didn't like it. Not all bad things are Unconstitutional, just as not all good things are Constitutitional.
Pure psychobabble.
If they'd done a better job, Aldrete-Davila would be in jail, instead of them.
This seems silly and could backfire as another poster said-—free mumia could be the result
Pressure needs to be brought to the WH on this.
Who can most effectively bring that pressure at his doorstep?
Remember the cindy woman?
Maybe this railroading was wrong, and shouldn’t have been done, but all the procedures involved were perfectly in accordance with the Constitution.
I think a more reasonable solution would be for the President to communte the sentence on the minimun 10 yr sentence given to each ex agent to time served and leave intact the remaining sentences they received for the other counts to which they were convicted. Ramos received one yr and one day prison time and Compean received two yrs prison time for the other counts in addition to other items imposed by the judge.
I don't believe Bush has a free hand here. The Cabal that runs him wants an open border and a cowed enforcement agency.
LOL!
Don't be so cynical. Bottom line. Ramos and Compean were doing their jobs. It was Dubya`s old friend Johnny Sutton who let this drug runner get off scot-free, pal.
If they were doing their job, Aldrete-Davila would be in jail, instead of them.
If it was a righteous shoot, they wouldn't have been picking up their own shell casings.
“Congress holds the purse. This is exactly how it’s supposed to work - according to the Constitution itself!”
Thank you. You are correct.
If it was a righteous shoot, they wouldn’t have been picking up their own shell casings.
That's correct. The Congress can de-fund any thing they fund, including this. It is also true that the executive does not have to enforce a law just because it is funded by Congress or a Judicial ruling has been made. Just ask Andrew Jackson.
That is the separation of powers.
Its okay by you that foreign criminal drug runners get off scot-free, while two Americans go to jail for doing their job. Wouldn’t be surprised to find out, you like amnesty and open borders.
LMBO
We'll see.
For some reason, incompetence and/or criminal behavior by government officials with guns makes me nervous.
Its okay by you that foreign criminal drug runners get off scot-free
No, it's not okay by me. If they caught him, he'd be in jail.
Wouldn’t be surprised to find out, you like amnesty and open borders.
I like neither amnesty nor open borders. Build a wall and put BP agents along it who don't break the law. Then I'll be happy.
Sounds like Compean really screwed Ramos.
This doesn’t pass the smell test. There is another way.
Yet you still stand with the Feds on this issue. Amazing. Bush and Sutton crossed the line and you don't get it.
>>>>>No, it's not okay by me.
Under the circumstances, I find that hard to believe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.