Posted on 03/23/2009 12:30:01 PM PDT by mnehring
The US Supreme Court will not hear the appeals of US Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean. The refusal lets stand the opinion of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirming the convictions and the sentences of the agents.
Although this effectively ends the agents’ hopes to have their felony convictions overturned, they are now free men thanks to a last minute commutation of their 10-year sentences by President Bush. Had it not been for Bush’s action, the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case would likely have meant the agents would have served their full sentences. Nonetheless, since Bush declined to pardon the men, they remain convicted felons.
Is this a vidication of the much-maligned Johnny Sutton (and the trial judge, and the Fifth Circuit justices, all of whom some have suggested were involved, along with the Bush Administration, in some Oliver Stone-like conspiracy) or an indication that SCOTUS is satisfied the men are now free?
Legally speaking, of course, it upholds the government’s case.
And they can no longer carry or even own firearms lawfully.
Anyone think that these two don't have enemies, who might want them, and their families perhaps, dead ?
Even more than jobs, they may need guards.
If he is not eligible to the office, how can he be President, sitting or standing, or laying on the floor?
I said that somewhat flippantly, but it was a serious question. Seems to be a matter of Constitutional interpretation, and enforcement, to me. That *is* the Court's job.
Would they be?
Only if an ineligible person can actually BE President. The Constitution says:
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment. ... The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.
...
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;
and
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Notice there is nothing about removing a ineligible usurper. If he is indeed ineligible, he is not President, and thus that last clause does not apply. Nor is there anything removing an ineligible person, by impeachment or otherwise.
The Court would also have to untangle just who is President. I think they'd find it was the VP. The issue of the legitimacy of his election would be a separate matter, but since he is presumably eligible, and the proper forms were followed, I think that would stand. But he'd be even more neutered than a lame duck in November, December and early January following an election.
Bull feces. Non of those affect eligibility, the only criteria for which are: 35 or older, 14 years a resident of the United States, and a natural born citizen. Not even in the original Constitution did the person even need to be male, even though females could not vote. (Now wouldn't that have been "interesting"? :) )
“Bush was never there when we needed him......”
But he sure was there for his cronies in the Mexican gov’t who want the border wide open.
Where do you get that notion. The Constitution lays out the "requirements", one either meets them or does not. What if it were discovered that he is not yet 35? Or not a citizen at all? That he's not really Barack Obama? Lots of possibilty, not all of which would constitute treason or high crimes and/or misdemeanors. In fact I don't think merely being ineligible is any of those. Lying about it, that would be fraud, and might constitute a "high crime".
They violated policy / procedure. A firing offense. Possible civil suit by the smuggler but not a crime. This was PC crap from day one IMO.
Don't ask SCOTUS. Ask the 65 million Americans who installed the Ignoramus in Chief.
The electorate and Congress have a responsibility to uphold the Constitution, first.
The voters wanted Obama, and they appear to deserve him.
The voters are clamoring for the government to take over private businesses like pirates. As far as SCOTUS is concerned, they must think they were brilliant in deciding Kelo since the concept of private property is apparently no longer acceptable in America.
Even if SCOTUS wanted to 'remove a sitting President,' they wouldn't DARE stand up an martyr him without any popular support from the public or Congress. Think about the reality. Obama would consolidate power and disband the court.
We 55 million Americans won't even utter more than a few ALL CAPS emails and file a few lawsuits againt state officials. Big whoop. How could the SCOTUS count on having ANY support if they ruled against the Prez???
And besides. Then what? Joe Biden?
REAGAN'S COUNTRY would not have allowed this. THIS COUNTRY, however....
“Then what? Joe Biden?”
Joe Biden would be more controllable than the Zer0 is with his Chicago, Acorn and home-boy gangs. Zer0 is dangerous.
Hey! Why stop there?!!? If we're suddenly such a fan of judicial solutions, let's just have them install Sarah Palin as president as she'd be more likely to uphold the Constitution!?! Why have elections at all?
Hopefully, if a conservative ever gets elected President, he/she will pardon these guys.
I'm sure they have a few tidbits about their department that they could write about. Every government agency has skeletons in its closets.
>> Bull feces. Non of those affect eligibility, the only criteria for which are: 35 or older, 14 years a resident of the United States, and a natural born citizen.
Liberal justices have never before been limited by the text of the Constitution — why would you assume that they would abide by those limitations in this case? They will find a way to insert an ideological test for eligibility for the Presidency (just as Senators have done for Supreme Court confirmations). The Constitution, after all, is a “living document”.
And, even if the Justices of the Court do not agree — this will not prevent ACLU attorneys from ramming case after case through the court system (perhaps the 9th Circuit) in an effort to use the judicial removal power against any conservative that takes office.
Mark my words, if we allow the Court the authority to remove a sitting President — that power will be used against us.
SnakeDoc
Disappointed for sure. Wish ‘W’ would have gone the full pardon...but I think some American patriots will hire these guys and they’ll be just fine.
Bump!
I don’t remember any Johnny Sutton lackeys. Certainly some people were called names, which hardly aids in the level of discourse.
There was valid news sources which contained the erroneous charge that Compean had said he was “out to shoot Mexicans”. I don’t think we should call people names if they quote from erroneous news sources, or else we’d all have to call each other names all the time since most all news has some error (and there’d be a LOT of namecalling with all the quoting of WND).
I see little difference between Johnny Sutton's behavior and that of the Raleigh, North Carolina DA who knowingly smeared the Duke students in a recent rape case. That DA was disbarred. Sutton went all over explaining how the perp tried to surrender [then Sutton held his hands up to the camera...”just like this”, he said.] And then he ran away and “was shot in the back.” Well, he was shot in the side. And, whether or not he really surrendered in such a fashion, only two people know. And, was he really armed, no one will ever know that except the drug smuggler. Sutton didn't know anything, but he went around condemning the agents as if he had seen them on tape!
Sutton chose to believe the drug smuggler and not the agents. Since we all saw how the prosecution dealt with the agents, I am not surprised that they were not more forthcoming. As it was, and as calcowgirl indicated, the agents really should have been dealt with administratively, if at all.
The real travesty is that the ten year sentence was tacked on for using a gun “in the commission of a crime.” Sutton tried to say if the agents were more truthful, he wouldn't have prosecuted them. So, he really was nailing them for lying [in his opinion] to the prosecutors and not for the shooting itself. That was a flagrant misuse of that law and I am most surprised that a larger flap was not generated over Sutton's use of it.
Your recollection matches mine. It was just another aspect of this case that was broken by reporter Sara Carter.
I also remember at least one freeper alleging that Johnny Sutton had evidence to back up the allegation that they were out to shoot a Mexican, something I don't remember ever seeing in a newspaper account. ("But the prosecuter has evidence that the two were heard saying they were going to hurt a mexican...")
HERE are some of the articles about the DHS atrocities. I wonder if any of those DHS officials were ever punished/prosecuted for lying to our Congressmen. (Yeah... like that would ever happen. What a shame)
Even after DHS officals fessed up to lying, that same freeper was suggesting that the allegation could still be true (" I note that DHS has not yet said the claims were false, just that they cannot turn over investigation paperwork proving the claims were true.")
And so it goes... on and on....
Charles, I don't know the right word for it. "Lackeys" seemed to fit.
“Hey! Why stop there?!!? If we’re suddenly such a fan of judicial solutions, let’s just have them install Sarah Palin as president as she’d be more likely to uphold the Constitution!?! Why have elections at all?”
That’s just silly. If Obama were unqualified, it would not affect Biden’s status as VP. And if he’s VP and there is no P, the Constitution says he’d become P. The Constitution could not in any way be construed so as to land Palin in office. It could, albeit without much precident, be so construed as to elevate Biden. Sometimes I enjoy reductio ad absurdum. Not in this case.
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.