Of course common law changes with the times, that's its greatest strength. I find the idea that a more codified law would hold true in the face of societal decay to be...optimistic.
Nyet! I had a discussion with my father a few weeks ago and he got upset when I tried to explain to him that under common law interpretations of law change with societal norms. If society continues to decay morally and ethically then pretty much anything goes. Studying constitutional law really woke me to up the sad legal reality we live in.
Abusing or torturing the prisoners would be far worse than mere racial profiling, or telling a Judge to go shove it. And again, much of my agreement is purely based on the guy's age. The rest is based on no other crimes than contempt of court. He is not guilty of other crimes. We do not throw people in jail for what we want, we do it based on what they are found guilty of in a court of law.
So in some respect Trump has made a mockery of it by not waiting until after sentencing, and maybe even a period of time after that. End of his term would have been "standard".
OTOH, you are also wanting to argue for ending the rule of law and holding people accountable for crimes of which they have not been found guilty. I'm not about to stand for that.
"Telling a judge to shove it" then having the leader of the executive branch let you get away with it is tantamount to one branch of government usurping the power of another. You do understand that criminal contempt is literally the only way for courts to enforce their rulings, right? Without it, the courts would be symbolic at best. If there is no penalty for criminal contempt every time a POTUS sides with the person violating the order, then we may as well not have a judicial branch. Just let the King decide everything. A POTUS is supposed to respect the powers and traditional functions of the other branches of government. While contempt may not seem like a really sexy crime to you, it's actually just about the last thing a POTUS should ever issue a pardon for.
"Telling a judge to shove it" then having the leader of the executive branch let you get away with it is tantamount to one branch of government usurping the power of another. You do understand that criminal contempt is literally the only way for courts to enforce their rulings, right? Without it, the courts would be symbolic at best. If there is no penalty for criminal contempt every time a POTUS sides with the person violating the order, then we may as well not have a judicial branch. Just let the King decide everything. A POTUS is supposed to respect the powers and traditional functions of the other branches of government. While contempt may not seem like a really sexy crime to you, it's actually just about the last thing a POTUS should ever issue a pardon for.
Of course common law changes with the times, that's its greatest strength. I find the idea that a more codified law would hold true in the face of societal decay to be...optimistic.
Abusing or torturing the prisoners would be far worse than mere racial profiling, or telling a Judge to go shove it. And again, much of my agreement is purely based on the guy's age. The rest is based on no other crimes than contempt of court. He is not guilty of other crimes. We do not throw people in jail for what we want, we do it based on what they are found guilty of in a court of law.
So in some respect Trump has made a mockery of it by not waiting until after sentencing, and maybe even a period of time after that. End of his term would have been "standard".
OTOH, you are also wanting to argue for ending the rule of law and holding people accountable for crimes of which they have not been found guilty. I'm not about to stand for that.
Smart move to backtrack to try to keep your D friends here. Though the funniest part of this thread is when realibrad got all ready to shill for trump, then read all of the shit arpaio pulled with kiddy rape victims and thought: "I don't know about taking another bullet for this". Evidently protecting nazis/klan driving into a crowd is where he draws the line and the right's new hero finally crosses that.
I still have you on ignore, but curiosity got the better of me. I am choosing to reply only to say, man, you are annoying.
"Telling a judge to shove it" then having the leader of the executive branch let you get away with it is tantamount to one branch of government usurping the power of another. You do understand that criminal contempt is literally the only way for courts to enforce their rulings, right? Without it, the courts would be symbolic at best. If there is no penalty for criminal contempt every time a POTUS sides with the person violating the order, then we may as well not have a judicial branch. Just let the King decide everything. A POTUS is supposed to respect the powers and traditional functions of the other branches of government. While contempt may not seem like a really sexy crime to you, it's actually just about the last thing a POTUS should ever issue a pardon for.
Smart move to backtrack to try to keep your D friends here. Though the funniest part of this thread is when realibrad got all ready to shill for trump, then read all of the shit arpaio pulled with kiddy rape victims and thought: "I don't know about taking another bullet for this". Evidently protecting nazis/klan driving into a crowd is where he draws the line and the right's new hero finally crosses that.
I think it might take a constitutional amendment to limit the pardoning power of the president. Like it or not, it seems the founding fathers wanted the president to have this power unchecked. Of course, they also imagined an extremely small federal government and federal code for which to commit offenses against. And let's not forget the second amendment and how the US escaped tyranny. It was reasonable at the country's origin that if it became corrupt, the people would fight it with force.
Things are different now. Although Arpaio doesn't pose continued threat to the US, this choice would be enough for me to support a Congressional check on the president's pardoning power.
The answer is to elect decent human beings to be Presidents. Trumpsters, of course, have taken great delight in doing just the opposite.
That's what the electoral college was supposed to do originally.The answer is to elect decent human beings to be Presidents. Trumpsters, of course, have taken great delight in doing just the opposite.
Just as a President can pardon for any reason he sees fit, Congress can impeach the president (and SCOTUS judges) for any reason they see fit.The President’s Pardon Power Is Absolute... But so is Congress’s impeachment power.
I think it might take a constitutional amendment to limit the pardoning power of the president. Like it or not, it seems the founding fathers wanted the president to have this power unchecked. Of course, they also imagined an extremely small federal government and federal code for which to commit offenses against. And let's not forget the second amendment and how the US escaped tyranny. It was reasonable at the country's origin that if it became corrupt, the people would fight it with force.
Things are different now. Although Arpaio doesn't pose continued threat to the US, this choice would be enough for me to support a Congressional check on the president's pardoning power.
It's also the reason they afforded impeachment powers to congress, as a check to remove someone who's negating the powers of the other branches by playing King. Now whether or not those powers will be utilized is another matter. It seems that for as far-reaching as our government is, weakness abounds.While most founding fathers (certainly not all) envisioned a smaller federal government and a smaller role for the president, prosecuting public officials for violating the constitution and then ignoring judgments of the courts would almost certainly have fallen well within the sort of things that would get someone federally prosecuted.
I mean this really is an attack on the separation of powers that our whole system of government is based on. The only thing that comes close IMO is the pardon of Nixon.
While most founding fathers (certainly not all) envisioned a smaller federal government and a smaller role for the president, prosecuting public officials for violating the constitution and then ignoring judgments of the courts would almost certainly have fallen well within the sort of things that would get someone federally prosecuted.
I mean this really is an attack on the separation of powers that our whole system of government is based on. The only thing that comes close IMO is the pardon of Nixon.
The answer is to impeach Trump. Even right wing National Review was saying that.
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...ential-pardon-power-congressional-impeachment
Just as a President can pardon for any reason he sees fit, Congress can impeach the president (and SCOTUS judges) for any reason they see fit.
The answer is to elect decent human beings to be Presidents. Trumpsters, of course, have taken great delight in doing just the opposite.
So do you think they failed to realize the potential abuse if power with pardoning or decided intentionally not to limit it? Somewhat of an academic question because the nature of our government and society is so different than now. I am no originalist, but I do feel that original intent should be examined and considered before deciding to alter constitutional interpretation, and that there should be a compelling reason rather than preference for the judiciary to interpret law differently. Otherwise, the power to change the Constitution rests with Congress and the people.
The courts just don't make that much law any more. Their role is really in the manner of interpreting it.
People make mistakes. Distracted by buttery males, etc.The answer is to elect decent human beings to all offices. Something we have been failing at for half a century. If we followed that we wouldn't need to impeach the President, because the President wouldn't have pardoned Arpaio, because Arpaio wouldn't have been sheriff. But unfortunately we had a terrible person as a sheriff, pardoned by a terribly person as President, and that pardon is being ignored by hundreds of terribly people in Congress.