You betcha!
Posted on 03/25/2005 10:00:29 AM PST by SENTINEL
I see no reason whatsoever that President Bush could not use his Presidential Pardon power to pardon Terri Schiavo. Our founding fathers granted the presidnet this power to protect the individual against evil in the judiciary. No mention is made between civil or criminal cases, and the only recourse from those opposed is the ballot box or impeachment.
President Bush could pardon Terri Shiavo, pick her up in the presidential helicopter, and keep her in the Lincoln bedroom to guarantee her safety during rehabilitation. Terri's mother could file for divorce on her behalf. With access to Terri, the news media and the Demoncrats would be exposed as the pure defenders of evil that they are.
After all of the garbage that went on in the Lincoln bedroom, and the evil pay-for-play pardons that went on during Clinton's term, the MSM would self destruct if they went after President Bush too hard.
Let's get to it Freepers ! We could save an innocent life.
The White House Switchboard (202)456-1414.
All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
No, you're correct. Comparing Terri to Jesus Christ, or comparing her impending death to a Satanic ritual is more idiotic than this thread.
Well, apparently when following a court order, you can't be charged.
This situation is definitely screwed up.
Yes, I did. I am not afraid to create controversy to protect the innocent. It disgusts me to no end that some modern leaders are so concerned about offending evil that they fail to act in opposition.
We did not win the Revolutionary war this way, not the civil war, not WW's 1 or 2, and we are not going to win the culture war this way either.
George Washington would act to save Terri !
You betcha!
http://www.c-span.org/executive/presidential/ford1_trans.asp
Pardons can be issued on a blanket basis in anticipation of charges filed. Hence it is not necessary to be convicted or even charged to be pardoned. However, it still remains a criminal matter, wholly distinct from Terri's situation.
Besides, I would dispute the notion that Nixon committed no crime. He was never charged or convicted, but that doesn't mean he didn't do it.
Why is that?
Thank you very much! You might want to keep it handy-- there's so much of it around these days.
That perhaps is the weakest of all arguments the inept attorneys for the Schindlers tried this week. It has no legal merit whatsoever. I assume they attempted in an effort to rally support from those who are religious, but it was a PR stunt, not a rational legal objection.
That's a great little graphic. I hope people "get it."
"he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."
I will explain 'reprieve' as soon as you explain which "offenses against the United States" Terri Schiavo has committed.
I'm not optimistic.
n Entry: 1re·prieve
Pronunciation: ri-'prEv
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): re·prieved; re·priev·ing
Etymology: alteration of earlier repry, perhaps from Middle French repris, past participle of reprendre to take back
1 : to delay the punishment of (as a condemned prisoner)
2 : to give relief or deliverance to for a time
You need to learn to diagram a sentence. Both 'reprieves' and 'pardons' are tied to "for offenses against the United States."
So again: which offenses against the United States has Terri Schiavo committed?
you forgot this part. What offenses has Mrs. Shiavo committed aginst the United States for which President Bush can pardon her, using his Constitutional authority? Look, I understand the issue here, and the passion for saving her, but do we really want a president who will act as a dictator?
Charles manson has been on death row for how many years, 20, 30 ?
An individual state has no authority to deprive an innocent of life, never has, never will.
President Bush is just as justified in acting to help Terri as Lincoln was in going forward with the civil war.
It fits just fine if you remove it from context. But not if you read the sentence properly.
Saving an innocent life cannot be a dictatory act. (Besides the fact that he took an oath to uphold the constitution including the 14th Amendment which includes the right to life.)
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.