Posted on 03/24/2005 3:29:58 PM PST by carl in alaska
Legal experts say that if Florida Gov. Jeb Bush defies state judge George Greer and orders state troopers to rescue Terri Schiavo, he and any other officials who participate in such a move risk a contempt citation from Greer that could put them in jail.
But with a powerful ally in the White House, Terri Schiavo's would-be rescuers have nothing to fear from the runaway judge.
In 2001, President Clinton pardoned drug dealers, international money launderers - even FALN terrorists, who were spared in a blatant bid to win votes for his wife's Senate campaign.
The episode taught a bewildered nation that the powers of the president to pardon anyone he wishes are absolute and irrefutable.
Today, Clinton is the most popular American politician in the world and his wife is the frontrunning candidate for her party's presidential nomination. In other words, the Pardongate scandal's lasting political fallout was nil.
He even pardoned his own brother, who had been convicted of selling cocaine.
Should Gov. Bush decide to rescue Terri Schiavo by force in violation of Judge Greer's order, President Bush could do the same for his brother - along with any other officials the right-to-die judge tries to punish.
Would there be controversy? You bet. Would the Bush family's political enemies try to capitalize? Absolutely.
But a nation that forgives one president for pardoning terrorists will certainly forgive another who uses his pardon power to save a life.
Once Terri Schiavo begins to receive the treatment she's been denied for more than a decade, her condition will almost certainly improve. Nurses who have cared for her have already testified she can speak and eat without a feeding tube, in stark contradiction of Judge Greer's findings.
Terri's recovery, however minimal, would serve as powerful evidence that the Bush brothers did the right thing in coming to her rescue.
In the meantime, the nation would be spared the haunting specter of its government starving an innocent citizen to death.
"I want to meet the guy who tries to slide handcuffs on Jeb".
That is what I have been saying. Just do it, say she is with me, and go off in the ambulance with her.
Isn't one life worth more than Republican or Democrat control? With both parties, lives are still going down the tubes wrongfully and prematurely.
Your priorities are out of whack, DG. Seriously.
don't really care that much what you think, but I'm trying to understand your position.
Non Sequitur, and the reason this is the first time I've ever posted on this issue.
Regarding my position, please see the following column by Neal Boortz. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/nealboortz/nb20050324.shtml
Just a question. Could the Vatican send somebody with Diplomatic immunity and retrieve Terri?
What will Greer and Co. do? Shoot at representatives of the Vatican?
Yeah, that'll go over real well.
Hey good show Carl....Glad to have you aboard. You're a legend around here in a very postive way.
Never thought it would come to this in America. Here we are killing an innocent woman in a hideous manner, and people are still trying to come here to seek political asylum from tyrants.
One would think, the fact that Jeb Bush's brother was the president, would have been an advantage. I guess such a situation is only a plus when it involves democrats.
Not true...get a grip on reality pal.
Clinton even pardoned a pedophile.
I knew this three ring circus was going to set back the pro-life movement for years and here is the proof!
Jeb has done everything legally possible for Terri and this will be the thanks he and the repub party will receive for their troubles??
Boy thats loyalty for ya, eh?
If this is the case the repub's might as well disown the pro-life movement and cut them loose!
See how much the Rat party will do for ya folks!
Well I'll still support Jeb for President or any other office. I'm just giving you a political analysis that even losing 10% of the evangelical vote could make it very tough for him to win a presidential election.
Seriously, no they are not. If you're in power, you can at least attempt to do the right thing and succeed some or most of the time. If you're out of power, you can't do squat.
If we commit political suicide to save Terri, we won't be around to save any number of future Terris, or even be able to try.
You are willing to win a battle even if it costs you the war. Think about it.
He looks like a groveling subservient girly-man, giving in to this judge, this lowly-placed judge, and letting a woman die in the torture of starvation.
While the 'manly' Miss Reno just sent down armed men and did what she liked.
I can't believe freepers are advocating following the butcher of Waco's lead in this matter! How many Florida Police, Federal Marshall's and Florida National Guardsman's life's would satisfy you people?
He** lets just set up a dictatorship while we're at it and round up all the demoRats for a mass hanging! /sarcasm!
You people are out of control!
That is simply not true.
Yes it IS true. A Presidential pardon is effective for both state and federal crimes.
Under Art. II, section 2 of the Constitution, the President "...shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." On first reading this may appear to mean that he can pardon for federal crimes, but not for state crimes. However, under the Supremacy clause of the Constitution, Art. VI, clause 2, the Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land," meaning federal law trumps state law.
In Bjerkan v. U.S., 529 F.2d 125 (7th Cir. 1975), the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals wrote, "In regard to the pardon power, the President's sphere is limited. He can only pardon those offenses which are 'against the United States.' But in this sphere, his power, like any constitutional power, must be supreme. It cannot be hindered by the operation of the subordinate governments. The pardon power would be ineffective if it could only restore a convict's federal civil rights. The pardoned person would still suffer numerous handicaps and would not receive the benefits of what the President in granting a full pardon would seem to intend--that the person be reinstated to his full rights as a citizen... we conclude that a presidential pardon restores state as well as federal civil rights."
So, in other words, Pres. Bush could pardon Gov. Bush if he wanted to.
To my knowledge, no federal charges were ever brought in the case.
Then I'm afraid your knowledge is faulty, because Clinton's pardon of Mel Reynolds was related to Reynolds' conviction on a federal fraud charge. Clinton's pardon did not -- indeed, could not -- extend to Reynolds' conviction on the state sex charges.
Problem is that Terri hasn't been convicted of anything. She is not a criminal. She hasn't been tried for anything. She's not guilty of anything. There is technically nothing to pardon. However, for some reason the courts are treating her husband like a god and ignoring the fact that he married a Catholic woman of faith with family and friends who love her regardless of her lack of health and inabilities, and her death takes precidence over her life.
Parents who love their children would never consider starving them just because they were born retarded, nor would they dehydrate their children if they became disabled - regardless of their age. This is called unconditional love. The love that is supposed to exist between husband and wife. For any husband to deprive his wife of medical care, then demand courtroom approval to dehydrate and starve her to death just because she is too much upkeep is nothing less than ghastly. This man has taken the oath "till death do us part" to a whole new level.
It is very sad that this woman's husband is so hell bent on killing her. By preventing his wife from obtaining medical treatment, mental stimulation, physical therapy, human contact, and more since the time of her stroke leads one to believe that "pulling the plug" is nothing less than premeditated. That the presiding judges are so eager to help him do it is suspicious at best. That the state judiciary would rather facilitate a death rather than save a life, is at best frightening. That this woman's parents cannot now or ever protect the life of their child is a complete travesty of justice.
Why this woman's husband just doesn't divorce her and let her parents take care of her without going to this extreme makes me wonder what kind of sick insanity is going on in his mind. Why the courts are sanctioning his actions makes me wonder what kind of sick insanity resides in the courts. And all of this is going on during one of the holiest times of the year.
There is a power much higher than the egos who wear black robes in blasphemy. There is a power much greater than the man who breached the "in sickness or in health" portion of his contract with his wife. This whole event is nothing less than a sign of things to come, and is only a small sample of just what our "criminal" justice system has truly become.
You are misreading the case you cite, I'm afraid. It doesn't say that the Presidential pardon power extends to a crime committed under the laws of a given state. It is saying that when the President has pardoned someone of a federal offense, then any legal disability (e.g., such as not being able to purchase a firearm) that, as a matter of state law, attached to that person on account of that federal conviction is "wiped clean" by the Presidential pardon.
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.