Merged Trump Pardons Arpaio

Giz said:
Turkey, right?
Click to expand...

Yes, and watch out America. This pardoning is the action of a man who has is clueless of the liberlist tradtions that the country was founded on and made it great. You have a fool wreaking havoc.
 
Last edited:
People do get what "a pardon" is, right?

Listen I loathe both Trump and Arpaio but people are acting like Trump somehow went outside the system and did something he wasn't supposed to be able to do. Saying a pardon is "subverting the legal system" ignores that pardons are built into the legal system by design.

But legally and Constitutionally... this is exactly why we have pardons, so the President can override legal proceedings. It's built into the system. This wasn't some shady, underhanded "Technicality" he performed it is literally the letter and the spirit (speaking in a purely legal and constitutional sense, not my personal opinion of it which I find odious) the concept.
 
JoeBentley said:
People do get what "a pardon" is, right?

Listen I loathe both Trump and Arpaio but people are acting like Trump somehow went outside the system and did something he wasn't supposed to be able to do. Saying a pardon is "subverting the legal system" ignores that pardons are built into the legal system by design.

But legally and Constitutionally... this is exactly why we have pardons, so the President can override legal proceedings. It's built into the system. This wasn't some shady, underhanded "Technicality" he performed it is literally the letter and the spirit (speaking in a purely legal and constitutional sense, not my personal opinion of it which I find odious) the concept.
Click to expand...

You do get who he has pardoned and why, right?
 
JoeBentley said:
People do get what "a pardon" is, right?

Listen I loathe both Trump and Arpaio but people are acting like Trump somehow went outside the system and did something he wasn't supposed to be able to do. Saying a pardon is "subverting the legal system" ignores that pardons are built into the legal system by design.

But legally and Constitutionally... this is exactly why we have pardons, so the President can override legal proceedings. It's built into the system. This wasn't some shady, underhanded "Technicality" he performed it is literally the letter and the spirit (speaking in a purely legal and constitutional sense, not my personal opinion of it which I find odious) the concept.
Click to expand...

I'm not super versed on this, but I'm taking this as an opportunity to learn.

As I understand it, Arpaio's conviction was rooted not just in arbitrary federal law, but in violations of constitutional rights.

I don't believe the precedents for pardons include too many examples of presidential pardons for constitutional violations.

If the President has the power to overrule the constitution with a pardon, then he has removed any checks on power. Trump has also been investigating preemptive pardons and the ability to pardon himself, and both those questions are not entirely resolved.
 
Cavemonster said:
I'm not super versed on this, but I'm taking this as an opportunity to learn.

As I understand it, Arpaio's conviction was rooted not just in arbitrary federal law, but in violations of constitutional rights.

I don't believe the precedents for pardons include too many examples of presidential pardons for constitutional violations.

If the President has the power to overrule the constitution with a pardon, then he has removed any checks on power. Trump has also been investigating preemptive pardons and the ability to pardon himself, and both those questions are not entirely resolved.
Click to expand...

Perhaps there are no precedents (although how exactly pardoning someone for a "constitutional violation" is any different then pardoning someone for a crime isn't clear to me) but there is nothing in the letter or legal and Constitutional spirit of the concept of the pardon that this is a violation of.

You are correct it is, sort of, an unchecked power. The only check is us electing better Presidents.

I'm not made that people are angry at Trump for doing this, hell I'm angry at Trump for doing this, but a lot of people are acting as if he pulled some dirty, underhanded legalize trick when all he did was... exactly by the books what the office of POTUS allows him to do.

He did something morally wrong, he didn't do anything procedurally wrong.
 
JoeBentley said:
Perhaps there are no precedents (although how exactly pardoning someone for a "constitutional violation" is any different then pardoning someone for a crime isn't clear to me) but there is nothing in the letter or legal and Constitutional spirit of the concept of the pardon that this is a violation of.

You are correct it is, sort of, an unchecked power. The only check is us electing better Presidents.

I'm not made that people are angry at Trump for doing this, hell I'm angry at Trump for doing this, but a lot of people are acting as if he pulled some dirty, underhanded legalize trick when all he did was... exactly by the books what the office of POTUS allows him to do.

He did something morally wrong, he didn't do anything procedurally wrong.
Click to expand...

But if the right to pardon supercedes constitutional rights, then it isn't just an unchecked power to get people out of jail, it's an unchecked power to do literally anything.

Especially when you combine it with preemptive pardon and self pardon.

It would mean that a President and his agents could do literally anything with no legal consequences.

For an extreme example, just to prove a point, what if the President decided to suspend elections? No legal effort to have them go forward would succeed if the President simply pardoned anyone who violated that legal order to and kept elections from happening.

Technically, if there is no sort of law immune to pardons, and it could be done preemptively, he could have anyone who tried to impeach him murdered, pardon the murderers, pardon himself for giving the order, and continue presidenting. He could have any reporters who tried to tell the public thrown in a dungeon and pardon everyone involved with doing so.

Obviously, although he is a massive twat, Trump isn't likely to be planning anything quite like that, but the precedent that a presidential pardon is higher than the bill of rights certainly constitutes a degree of power that hasn't been exercised in pardons before, and wasn't the intent of the framers.
 
It would seem that Trump has pardoned Arpiao for the current conviction only, i.e. the contempt of court. So while Trump's action is reprehensible, it does not stop Arpiao being charged and convicted in the near future of other crimes he has committed. I gather there is a laundry list of these, enough to keep him in court for years, and even in jail to prevent him fleeing justice. So Sheriff Joe is not out of the woods yet.
 
The Big Dog said:
No I do not understand that because there is such a thing.
Click to expand...

Contempt of court is considered a prerogative of the court, and "the requirement of a jury does not apply to 'contempts committed in disobedience of any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command entered in any suit or action brought or prosecuted in the name of, or on behalf of, the United States.'
 
PhantomWolf said:
Contempt of court is considered a prerogative of the court, and "the requirement of a jury does not apply to 'contempts committed in disobedience of any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command entered in any suit or action brought or prosecuted in the name of, or on behalf of, the United States.'
Click to expand...

next time you cite an outdated wikipedia article, do us a solid and link it.

cavemonster already cited the controlling authority
 
JoeBentley said:
....
He did something morally wrong, he didn't do anything procedurally wrong.
Click to expand...

That's kinda the point. The president is expected to exercise judgment and restraint. Typically, he pardons people who have already completed their legal process, including serving their sentences, after consultation with the Justice Department. Exceptions, like Nixon, Weinberger etc., are rare and always controversial. In this particular case, Arpaio has a long, documented history of civil rights violations and abuse of prisoners, and he was held in contempt by a federal judge. To pardon him as Trump did sends a message that his friends can do anything they want and get away with it.

What a great message to send to all the people under investigation by Robert Mueller: You cover my back and I'll cover yours.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ignore-robert-mueller/?utm_term=.b4c0b34d598c

And reports by Arpaio's "customers:"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...e-arpaios-victims-he-doesnt-deserve-a-pardon/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...hould-never-walk-free/?utm_term=.1b14c55742cc
 
785. Jury Trial

The Supreme Court has adopted the standard set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 1(3) regarding the definition of a "petty offense," insofar as it has ruled that imprisonment for no more than six months for contempt is constitutionally permissible without a jury trial. Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U.S. 488 (1974). See also Frank v. United States, 395 U.S. 147 (1969) (sentence of three years probation permissible without jury trial). However, the Court has declined to rule that contempt proceedings, at least as to organizations, resulting in fines of greater than the amount set out in 18 U.S.C. § 1(3) are automatically entitled to jury trials. See Muniz v. Hoffman, 422 U.S. 454, 477 (1975).

A court may, during the course of a trial, impose successive summary contempt orders resulting in an aggregate sentence of imprisonment of more than six months in the absence of a jury trial. Such sentencing is permissible so long as no one contempt order carries a sentence of greater than six months. If, however, the court chooses to impose a single finding of contempt at the termination of the trial, imprisonment for longer than six months is constitutionally impermissible without a jury trial, even if the judge calculates the sentence of imprisonment for each contempt at six months or less. See Codispoti v. Pennsylvania, 418 U.S. 506 (1974).

If the contempt falls within the purview of 18 U.S.C. § 402, contempts constituting crimes, then the contemnor is automatically entitled to a jury trial by reason of 18 U.S.C. § 3691.

There was no requirement for a Jury trial.
 
PhantomWolf said:
You do understand that there is no such thing as a Jury Trial for Contempt of Court cases, right?
Click to expand...

PhantomWolf said:
785. Jury Trial

The Supreme Court has adopted the standard set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 1(3) regarding the definition of a "petty offense," insofar as it has ruled that imprisonment for no more than six months for contempt is constitutionally permissible without a jury trial. Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U.S. 488 (1974). See also Frank v. United States, 395 U.S. 147 (1969) (sentence of three years probation permissible without jury trial). However, the Court has declined to rule that contempt proceedings, at least as to organizations, resulting in fines of greater than the amount set out in 18 U.S.C. § 1(3) are automatically entitled to jury trials. See Muniz v. Hoffman, 422 U.S. 454, 477 (1975).

A court may, during the course of a trial, impose successive summary contempt orders resulting in an aggregate sentence of imprisonment of more than six months in the absence of a jury trial. Such sentencing is permissible so long as no one contempt order carries a sentence of greater than six months. If, however, the court chooses to impose a single finding of contempt at the termination of the trial, imprisonment for longer than six months is constitutionally impermissible without a jury trial, even if the judge calculates the sentence of imprisonment for each contempt at six months or less. See Codispoti v. Pennsylvania, 418 U.S. 506 (1974).

If the contempt falls within the purview of 18 U.S.C. § 402, contempts constituting crimes, then the contemnor is automatically entitled to a jury trial by reason of 18 U.S.C. § 3691.

There was no requirement for a Jury trial.
Click to expand...

looket them goal posts goooooo!

It is fine
 
The Big Dog said:
Too bad Trump pardoned him, he should have been allowed a jury trial, instead of a bench trial.

Viva la constitution!
Click to expand...

The Constitution was never designed to prevent justice.

The man is responsible for gross violations of human rights, suicides, at least and at least one negligent homicide. He has to pay for his crimes!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom