Posted on 05/08/2007 11:58:06 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
The power to pardon traditionally belongs to the president. But Representative Duncan Hunter, who is seeking the 2008 Republican nomination, isn’t waiting for Inauguration Day.
Mr. Hunter introduced a bill in January to initiate an unprecedented Congressional pardon of two former border patrol agents currently serving 11- and 12-year sentences after shooting a drug smuggler on the Texas-Mexico border in 2005.
For Mr. Hunter and other immigration hardliners, their conviction is an “extreme injustice.”
While Constitutional objections are “very much a possibility,” said Joe Kasper, Mr. Hunter’s spokesman, he doesn’t see the measure threatening executive power. The president’s required signature on the bill “would obviously be synonymous with his authority to execute a pardon,” he said. “The Congress is doing nothing more than initiating a pardon.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com ...
Icoulr give a frick about Johnny Sutton or Davila. Our constitutional guarantees and liberties trump them all.
I could give a frick about Johnny Sutton or Davila. Our constitutional guarantees and liberties trump them all.
Well, gee, without Davila and/or Sutton there is no case at all in the first place!
“Yeah, I know. Our BP guys should back off a tad. You’d think they think we’re at war or something the way they’re acting.”
Well Jim, if you believe controlling our borders is more important than our constitution, I got nothing more to say.
I will add that I am severely disappointed. Your steadfast dedication to constitutional principles and the rule of law bouyed us all in turbulent times.
I gues things change, not always for the better.
I’m not arguing with you, Bob. Just not choosing to make this BP action the hill I die on. They’re convicted. Message sent. Illegal alien drug dealer off scot-free. His “rights” protected. Trial transcripts published for the world to see how an efficient justice system works. Prosecutors get their hero badges. The constitution is saved. Now, about the only thing that’s missing is a little justice for the hardworking guys on the front lines who got railroaded.
LOL. A little melodramatic aren’t we Bob?
It’s not the hill I want to die on either. But my eyes have been opened some about people (not talking about you) who so easily and casually abandon what I thought we all were together on about our core principles...because it happens to suit their agenda at the time.
It’s very discouraging. If we don’t have those core principles all we got is “Lord of the Flies” and in that scenario the libs will win every time because they’re better at chaos than we are.
Yeah, no kidding. My eyes have been opened a bit recently too.
Hunter isn’t attempting to pardon the agents he is attempting to get a pardon in front of the President. Nothing unConstitutional there.
I don’t think so Jim. We’re talking deal breakers. In the last year I have personally been so disconnected with what I thought were common core conservative values I don’t know what to do.
Everyone is so focused on their own individual issues that we seem to have lost our ability to look at the big picture.
The libs are going to exploit that breach and we’ll end up with the grey witch or Barak the magic negro in the oval office...and Pelosi and Reid ramming their lib legislation down our throats.
You're sick. The officers had determined through Davila's own actions he was a "clear and present danger" to either the officers or to society at large and they were given the lawful authority to use sufficient force necessary to overcome that threat. That bears absolutely no equity whatsoever with a knife weilding madman murderously jealous over the possibility of his ex-wife's "laying" another man; a madman who nearly severs the heads of his victims.
Amen to that.
I think you mistook fear of a Hillary presidency for abandoment of principle. People can get scared once in a while and make weird decisions, but if the response is to make them go away you lose any chance of changing their minds...and we’ll need every vote to beat the heavy ankled one.
Own individual issues? I thought we were talking about our longstanding core conservative principles. You know, like starting with our unalienable rights to Life and Liberty.
What have you been smoking? Nobody except the most ardent border control zeolots believed half of what R&C testified to. Not even their own brother agents on the scene.
Step away from the kool aid, it can warp your senses.
I agree with you there Jim, but you have to admit there are different kinds of conservatives. Some focus on social issues, some financial, others constitutional like the 2nd Amend.
Personally, I never understood your jihad against Rudy. I know some like him (because they believe he can defeat the charging rhino thigh one) but he was never going to get the pub nomination. The only reason he polls high is because people don’t know enough about him and the campaign will eventually right that.
There are some things I admire about Rudy, like his effectiveness on crime, but there is no way he was going to get the nomination once the religous, 2nd amend and border control conservatives found out what he was about. The numbers just don’t add up.
That being said, if he did get the nomination he could probably win the general, but that’s a big if.
My advice, not that it was solicited, is you enforce the “no abuse” rule, try to separate the factions and ride it out. Once the election was over we’d all be one big happy family again.
Now you got a couple hundred people (maybe more) looking for a rope.
Well, sorry, but as great as you apparently think I am about convincing others to change their minds, I’m just not capable of turning around a hard charging herd of hysterical RINOs. But we all know where they are. Maybe someone else can go over and try to convince them that we’d have a better shot of defeating Hillary if we DO stick to our principles and run a conservative so we give the voters a clear choice. Not to mention NOT destroying our cause and or the republic in the process.
Who are these “border control zealots” of whom you speak? What part of the constitution has been damaged or violated by any of this, specifically? I have so much difficulty connecting the constitution with the reality on the ground. I have looked and am still looking for anything that may have warranted a precedent for abortion with no success.
You under estimate your influence. Stating your case calmly yet passiontely I know would have given some pause to rethink their position. You wouldn’t get all of them but you’d get some...nobody ever gets all they want in politics.
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.