Replies

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.

Here's what the Constitution (of which Paul supposedly is the champion) says about pardon power (Article Two, Section Two):

...he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

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.

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.

While you're correct, the Paul statement regarding Libby was

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.

One wonders if President Paul (gag) would appoint Federal and Supreme Court justices that also read stuff into the Constitution that isn't there.

Do you really not understand the difference between opposing something and thinking that something is unConstitutional?