Just to be clear about my bias: I think that the presidential pardon power is an affront to the idea of rule of law and shouldn't exist, no matter who the president is.
This is an interesting situation. If Trump can just make shit up and declare a previous president's pardons to be void, then a future president can do the same with Trump's pardons. This might, in fact, be a back door method of effectively neutralizing the presidential pardon.
Pardons have been an integral part of English Common Law for over 1,000 years. The Framers of the Constitution didn't invent the concept out of thin air; they drew on a long-standing tradition of clemency to ensure justice and mercy within the legal system.
A _personal_ pardon power is a bit of an oddity these days, though; by the 19th century it was dead in the UK, say (George VI _attempted_ to use it, but at that point it was essentially a constitutional crisis, and he backed down).
Yes, I'm aware of the history. That history, in my mind, only underscores that the presidential pardon is a holdover of monarchical power that should have no role in a governmental system that is supposed to be based on the rule of law.
> to ensure justice and mercy within the legal system.
But it does no such thing. All it does is to make the ultimate arbiter of what counts as "justice" a single person. That is not a good thing and is not conducive to justice.
Are pre-emptive blanket pardons traditional? I can see how Trump or some future president might abuse that, especially if autopen is allowed so that thousands or even tens of thousands can be pardoned at once to prevent subsequent political lawfare.
I’m not sure it neutralizes it for everyone. Dem staffers have mentioned how Biden was mentally declining for the last few years and that it was denied and covered up by the party leaders. There have been allegations that a few people close to him have basically run the last administration by using the auto pen instead of him. I’m not sure if that can ever be proven. But my point is I think this tactic of undoing pardons may be a thing specific to Biden’s situation.
> I think this tactic of undoing pardons may be a thing specific to Biden’s situation.
Why do you think this? It doesn't matter what the current administration thinks. If it sets the legal precedent that it can undo pardons by prior administrations based on little more than what the president thinks, then that power is also available to be used by future administrations based on their own opinions as well.
I actually believe that the not signing thing is a much bigger deal. What then becomes the job description if you cant be bothered to sign? A few steps further you can legitimately deny ever seeing a document. That it bears your rubber stamp means nothing, anyone could have done that.
I understand your point around precedent. My point is that Trump is not going to do something that removes the power of pardon from himself. I think the way they’re going to approach this is to frame it as a Biden specific problem with the pardons. It may end up requiring a court process, but it is possible that they will bring evidence forward to show that Biden was not really making these pardon decisions himself.
Then I guess this would mean we have to go back and review all - what - presidential proclamations, laws, executive orders done by autopen and void them?
What is troublesome is to grace anything Trump says with any measure of validity. He's always just trying to sow doubt on anyone or anything who doesn't support him.
I mean, the next president could just claim that Trump’s hands were too small for proper signing or something; the details really hardly matter. It’s a complete nonsense anyway; if it stands up, then the US has itself a constitutional crisis.
Trump has probably been getting regular updates about cementing his path to self pardon; and the working theory is that President Autopen should be treated as separate but bigly
I've always been sus of the autopen. It's just authorized forgery.
The times I've heard about it has been the president traveling, but in the age of printers and scanners, the autopen seems strictly worse. Coming home with the original wet-ink signature a week after sending a digital copy seems preferable to the "just trust me bro" method of delegating a signature there is no legal will to legislate a real delegation process for.
Until they exercise the 25th amendment, the president can authorize things. That’s why Trump has been careful to select devout loyalists he can rely on not to question his actions.
That’s supposition on your part, and while I’m sure that the people who tell you what you believe sound confident that Biden is senile, wishing really hard isn’t a diagnosis and we have no evidence that this is contrary to his desires. Presidents are allowed to delegate, just as we’re seeing with Trump signing EOs written by a team of Heritage Foundation lawyers: nothing says he has to do more than approve of the goal.
What’s ridiculous is believing the cover story. This isn’t just some random joke about the previous guy, it’s a trial balloon to see if they can ignore the Constitution by pretending Biden didn’t really sign something. This is at the level of the “sovereign citizen” nuts who claim that they don’t need to pay child support because the courtroom had the wrong color flag, except that it’s in service of prosecuting political opponents.
Trump's legal interpretations are always about him, not any sensible analysis.
I'd like to see the system done away with. It doesn't make sense that buddies of the executive branch should be given special treatment... same goes for Trump & Co. It has gotten wild with preemptive pardons and so on. That's not equal protection under the law ...
If the system was really a system where they reviewed exceptional cases of non connected folks and issued pardons I'd be ok with it, but it's not.
Having said all that, this declaration seems to be the purview of the courts not the executive branch.
The complaints about Biden's cognitive abilities is so strange when it gets spammed, these folks must have never watched Trump's train of thought wander away in speeches before.
Not really sure if you're serious, but the night Trump was sworn in and took office, he talked for multiple hours straight, without a teleprompter (as always), with reason and a red thread through the entire thing. You may not agree with his policies, but to claim that his mental health is declining is ridiculous.
OTOH, watching Biden spontaneously become a Roomba, walking away in arbitrary directions, always having his handlers with him, etc. is ultimately sad. I dont think people point it out to ridicule, I think it's a serious situation, especially given the fact that he was commander in chief for 4 years.
Just to be clear about my bias: I think that the presidential pardon power is an affront to the idea of rule of law and shouldn't exist, no matter who the president is.
This is an interesting situation. If Trump can just make shit up and declare a previous president's pardons to be void, then a future president can do the same with Trump's pardons. This might, in fact, be a back door method of effectively neutralizing the presidential pardon.
Pardons have been an integral part of English Common Law for over 1,000 years. The Framers of the Constitution didn't invent the concept out of thin air; they drew on a long-standing tradition of clemency to ensure justice and mercy within the legal system.
A _personal_ pardon power is a bit of an oddity these days, though; by the 19th century it was dead in the UK, say (George VI _attempted_ to use it, but at that point it was essentially a constitutional crisis, and he backed down).
Yes, I'm aware of the history. That history, in my mind, only underscores that the presidential pardon is a holdover of monarchical power that should have no role in a governmental system that is supposed to be based on the rule of law.
> to ensure justice and mercy within the legal system.
But it does no such thing. All it does is to make the ultimate arbiter of what counts as "justice" a single person. That is not a good thing and is not conducive to justice.
Are pre-emptive blanket pardons traditional? I can see how Trump or some future president might abuse that, especially if autopen is allowed so that thousands or even tens of thousands can be pardoned at once to prevent subsequent political lawfare.
Jimmy Carter issued a pre-emptive blanket pardon for the Vietnam War draft evaders, so precedence has been set.
Pardons exists also in Civil Law.
I’m not sure it neutralizes it for everyone. Dem staffers have mentioned how Biden was mentally declining for the last few years and that it was denied and covered up by the party leaders. There have been allegations that a few people close to him have basically run the last administration by using the auto pen instead of him. I’m not sure if that can ever be proven. But my point is I think this tactic of undoing pardons may be a thing specific to Biden’s situation.
> I think this tactic of undoing pardons may be a thing specific to Biden’s situation.
Why do you think this? It doesn't matter what the current administration thinks. If it sets the legal precedent that it can undo pardons by prior administrations based on little more than what the president thinks, then that power is also available to be used by future administrations based on their own opinions as well.
I actually believe that the not signing thing is a much bigger deal. What then becomes the job description if you cant be bothered to sign? A few steps further you can legitimately deny ever seeing a document. That it bears your rubber stamp means nothing, anyone could have done that.
I understand your point around precedent. My point is that Trump is not going to do something that removes the power of pardon from himself. I think the way they’re going to approach this is to frame it as a Biden specific problem with the pardons. It may end up requiring a court process, but it is possible that they will bring evidence forward to show that Biden was not really making these pardon decisions himself.
> it is possible that they will bring evidence forward to show that Biden was not really making these pardon decisions himself.
I seriously doubt this. If they had such evidence, they would have already presented it publicly for political purposes.
Trump "declared" them invalid "because of the fact that they were done by Autopen", which isn't specific to the pardons or to Biden at all.
>when a future president can do the same with Trump's pardons.
the precedent set is the cancellation of autopen'd CNC'd signatures used during a presidency where many think the leader was mentally MIA.
it's troublesome to consider a cabinet that short-circuited the president via CNC'd autopen signatures, even if you're against the Trump presidency.
Then I guess this would mean we have to go back and review all - what - presidential proclamations, laws, executive orders done by autopen and void them?
Trump just makes stuff up.
What is troublesome is to grace anything Trump says with any measure of validity. He's always just trying to sow doubt on anyone or anything who doesn't support him.
I mean, the next president could just claim that Trump’s hands were too small for proper signing or something; the details really hardly matter. It’s a complete nonsense anyway; if it stands up, then the US has itself a constitutional crisis.
It's a poor bluff. Since Biden is still living, he could easily confirm what pardons he approved.
Trump has probably been getting regular updates about cementing his path to self pardon; and the working theory is that President Autopen should be treated as separate but bigly
This is bullshit, US presidents have been signing laws etc by autopen for decades.
I've always been sus of the autopen. It's just authorized forgery.
The times I've heard about it has been the president traveling, but in the age of printers and scanners, the autopen seems strictly worse. Coming home with the original wet-ink signature a week after sending a digital copy seems preferable to the "just trust me bro" method of delegating a signature there is no legal will to legislate a real delegation process for.
If it's authorized it can't be forgery.
Right, but what if unauthorized happens? How do you distinguish authorized from unauthorized?
Obviously, you can ask Biden: did he authorize such and such a document or not.
This suspicion would only be a problem in the case of someone deceased.
What do auto pens have to do with this?
People have been forging signatures for centuries.
The whole thing from Trump is bullshit. “Plausible justification” for those that want to believe.
Can a senile old man authorize anything in a legal sense?
Until they exercise the 25th amendment, the president can authorize things. That’s why Trump has been careful to select devout loyalists he can rely on not to question his actions.
Is that how a senile old man was allowed to keep auto-penning documents drafted by said devout loyalists?
That’s supposition on your part, and while I’m sure that the people who tell you what you believe sound confident that Biden is senile, wishing really hard isn’t a diagnosis and we have no evidence that this is contrary to his desires. Presidents are allowed to delegate, just as we’re seeing with Trump signing EOs written by a team of Heritage Foundation lawyers: nothing says he has to do more than approve of the goal.
Ridiculous. Good night.
What’s ridiculous is believing the cover story. This isn’t just some random joke about the previous guy, it’s a trial balloon to see if they can ignore the Constitution by pretending Biden didn’t really sign something. This is at the level of the “sovereign citizen” nuts who claim that they don’t need to pay child support because the courtroom had the wrong color flag, except that it’s in service of prosecuting political opponents.
Trump's legal interpretations are always about him, not any sensible analysis.
I'd like to see the system done away with. It doesn't make sense that buddies of the executive branch should be given special treatment... same goes for Trump & Co. It has gotten wild with preemptive pardons and so on. That's not equal protection under the law ...
If the system was really a system where they reviewed exceptional cases of non connected folks and issued pardons I'd be ok with it, but it's not.
Having said all that, this declaration seems to be the purview of the courts not the executive branch.
[flagged]
More than 4, Trump is currently working on his second term and is more incoherent than Biden ever was.
Ontopic: This is just plain bs of course. Nowhere is described how a pardon must happen, a president in the US can do it through words solely.
The complaints about Biden's cognitive abilities is so strange when it gets spammed, these folks must have never watched Trump's train of thought wander away in speeches before.
Not really sure if you're serious, but the night Trump was sworn in and took office, he talked for multiple hours straight, without a teleprompter (as always), with reason and a red thread through the entire thing. You may not agree with his policies, but to claim that his mental health is declining is ridiculous.
OTOH, watching Biden spontaneously become a Roomba, walking away in arbitrary directions, always having his handlers with him, etc. is ultimately sad. I dont think people point it out to ridicule, I think it's a serious situation, especially given the fact that he was commander in chief for 4 years.
> "That's beautiful. This is a different panel...everything's computer! That's beautiful! Wow!"
Yeah, not at all senile. Bigly coherent.