Posted on 11/20/2007 12:10:24 PM PST by Captain Kirk
To the Editor
I read Mona Charen’s column on Friday and I had to clear a few things up. Outside of the name-calling (“kook,” as I’m sure you remember, was the attack word of choice used by critics of Barry Goldwater), Charen was way off base.
1. Dr. Paul’s commitment to principle is second to none, so to attack him, Charen twists the understanding of what a presidential pardon really is. A pardon is a constitutional check by the executive branch on the judiciary to protect against cruel or unusual punishment. When considering a pardon, a president examines extenuating circumstances to decide whether a punishment for a conviction under the law was unjust. Scooter Libby was convicted of a crime; that is not the issue here. Dr. Paul is not sympathetic to issuing him a pardon because he finds Libby an unsympathetic character. There is nothing inconsistent here. President Bush, who has issued the fewest pardons of any president since World War II, hasn’t pardoned Libby either, by the way.
(Excerpt) Read more at article.nationalreview.com ...
LOL!
BUMP
Here's what the Constitution (of which Paul supposedly is the champion) says about pardon power (Article Two, Section Two):
That's IT. There is no legal characterization of what a pardon is or what it should be; outside of cases of impeachment, what the Prez sez goes -- a pardon is anything s/he wants it to be.
...he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Once Bill Clinton decided that international fugitive Marc Rich had been crisscrossing the world without seeing his gorgeous wife Denise (who had conveeeeniently given a generous gift to the construction of the future Clinton Presidential Library), he pardoned him hours before George W. Bush was inaugurated.
Does it stink to high heaven? Yeah. Is there anything anybody can do about reversing it? See above.
One wonders if President Paul (gag) would appoint Federal and Supreme Court justices that also read stuff into the Constitution that isn't there.
1. Ron Paul is inconsistent. Though he calls himself a man of principle and is apparently admired as such by his ardent fans, his principles seem somewhat elastic. He rails against the Bush administration for its supposed assault on civil liberties, yet when he was asked at one of the debates whether Scooter Libby deserved a pardon, he said no. "He doesn't deserve one because he was instrumental in leading the Congress and the people to support a war that we didn't need to be in." Notice that he didn't say it was because Libby was guilty of committing a crime. No, because Libby argued for a policy with which Paul disagreed, he deserved to serve time in prison. Ron Paul, the libertarian, who presumably values liberty above all, is willing to deprive someone else of his because of a policy disagreement?
Essentially Paul thinks Libby belongs in jail because he supported the Iraq war. The Constitution had no more to do with it than guilt.
You need to read more about Ron Paul. Isolationism better describes the current policy. Ron Paul, by contrast, is for free trade and diplomacy.
You need to read more about Ron Paul. Isolationism better describes the current policy. Ron Paul, by contrast, is for free trade and diplomacy.
Is there some toxin like libertoonian juice in the water system of your part of North Carolina? Thank God you do not typify North Carolina voters. Do you applaud Goldwater as a former Senatorial one-man cheering section for abortion, including the abortion of his own innocent grandchild in which he was morally complicit?
NR has reaffirmed its support for the war and libertoonianism is STILL not and NEVER will be conservatism. When you say "faux conservative" you mean that they reject the cowardly ways of paleos and of the late and unlamented Neville Chamberlain. Your Dr. Demento is no conservative and never will be. Nor will he ever be nominated for POTUS by the GOP. He should run third party, be insanely (what else?) aggressive in his denunciation of the war and split the leftist vote because, by comparison, the Hildebeast, B. Hussein Obama and Edwards are downright patriotic and even warmongers.
Huckabee, unlike the paleosurrenderman and Al Qaeda mouthpiece paleoPaulie, is a patriot and a conservative, not perfect but near infinitely better than the paleopipsqueak as are McCain, Romney, Thompson, and several other actually Republican and other actually conservative GOP candidates. Only paleoPaulie thinks that craven treason is practical politics or even principle.
Mona Charen is a lot better than Jonah Goldberg generally. Just about anyone is better than the paleopipsquek. 44 days to the ciderpress that will eliminate paleoPaulie from American politics. Tick, tick, tick.....
They said that paleoPaulie, Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, the Unabomber and Jeffrey Dahlmer were nuttier than than fruitcakes and.....they were, ummmm, absolutely right! Just because the Wright Brothers knew what they were doing does not mean that paleoPaulie is not a certifiable lunatic. Thanks for playing anyhow.
Sometimes the peanut gallery is right.
Isn’t it interesting that libertoonianism in the form of paleowhateverism has degenerated to the point where its (and Al Qaeda’s) leading spokesthing (Dr. Demento) would have Scooter Libby jailed for disagreeing with the Paulistinian delusions on Islamofascism (as Paulie’s beloved peace partners and trade partners) and the Middle East and supporting a war that Demento opposes?
OK, that's going too far. There's something SERIOUSLY wrong with LaRouchies, as anyone who has tried to engage them in polite discussion has discovered.
The problem I have with Ron Paul, is will he go away when he loses the primaries? If he goes third party, he may be the Perot-like Foil used to split the votes and give a 40% victory to another Clinton. Maybe I worry too much.
Consistant with the cult nature of Paul's support, you're in or you're out.
Oh yeah, great principles.
Ron Paul’s $400 Million Earmarks
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292334,00.html
He puts them in the bill, then votes against the bill knowing it will pass anyway, and then he can say it’s not his fault. He voted against it.
Hypocrite.
No but he is the editor of the National Review. I think you're just upset that for the most part the Republican party is falling apart at the seams. About time too. Yes I said it. Republicans have played at conservatism for far too long and have practically destroyed the conservative movement in less than 20 years.
but he forgot that the interior of the paleomushball's "mind" most resembles the quiet orderliness of the "minds" of a Charles Manson, a Jeffrey Dahlmer, or a twisted version of Ted Bundy or the Unibomber, not necessarily their results although Paulistinian peacecreepology and general lunacy, if policy, would bring about the death by Jihad of many more defenseless Americans and Israelis than those four could kill
Whew, what do you smoke to come up with this crap? You should sell it, you'd make a million dollars (course the way the dollar's going, you'd only make half that next week)
Do you applaud Goldwater as a former Senatorial one-man cheering section for abortion, including the abortion of his own innocent grandchild in which he was morally complicit?
Whether or not he was complicit is his business and his alone. I do not agree with abortion, however it was intended to be an issue for the separate and sovereign states (now please blindly post the 14th Amendment, 5th Amendment and Preamble if you will. I've come to the realization you're just a mouthpiece who doesn't think for himself so go ahead and cut and paste).
Mona Charen is a lot better than Jonah Goldberg generally. Just about anyone is better than the paleopipsquek. 44 days to the ciderpress that will eliminate paleoPaulie from American politics. Tick, tick, tick.....
Yep that seals it. While even detractors of Dr. Paul are calling Ms. Charen out on her 'hit piece', the blind 'faithful' still lap it up.
Earmarks don’t make a bit of difference in the level of spending. Besides, since you hate earmarks so much presumbably you also dislike Hunter and Fred, who also claim to be for limited government but use earmarks.
I would like to see earmarks eliminated, yes. If it’s worth doing then let it stand on it’s own.
But your point makes no sense.
It’s your guy that claims to be too good to spend taxpayer’s money and who has found an underhanded way to do it while claiming he didn’t.
“Dr. Paul never utters the word “isolationist” except to explain why he is not one. He believes in the foreign policy of the founders: peace, commerce, and open friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.”
Sounds OK, except the entangling alliances we currently have are U.S. law, and our allies are depending on us to keep our word. What does Ron Paul believe is more important, upholding the law and US honor, or following George Washington’s farewell advice? Dr. Paul gives the impression that for him a speech our great founder gave in 1797 supercedes every other consideration.
Do you really not understand the difference between opposing something and thinking that something is unConstitutional?
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.