• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Bush Revokes Pardon for Isaac Toussie One Day Later

I think that Bush is easily the worst president of my life and I lived through the Nixon presidency.


Sorry to hear you were in a coma from 1977 to 1981 then :)

It's mightily embarrassing to rescind a pardon, but better than letting it go after uncovering reasons why it was unwarranted. The whole Presidential pardon thing should probably be scrapped, but you can argue it's a release valve for petty partisan prosecutions. However, most pardons don't fit that description.
 
My guess is that even if the above is Bush, et al's understanding of the process, the whole thing is about to be challenged and written in stone (so to speak) by the Supreme Court in a way that it currently isn't. I have no idea what the historical precedent for this is, but I'm betting Mr. Toussie's lawyers have a fairly decent case to make.

...

All likely true, but if that piece of paper hasn't been signed the situation looks pretty straightforward to me. Bush orders person X to pardon person Y. Until person X has carried out the order person Y isn't pardoned and Bush can issue a new order to not pardon person Y.

If this thing hinges on whether a pardon is in effect when the piece of paper issuing the pardon is signed or when it is served the situation seems murkier to me.

Unless the pardon is written in such a way that specifies that it must be served before it is in effect, the obvious assumption would be that it is in effect as soon as it is signed and I don't see any legal reason to assume otherwise.

I looked around the web trying to find the text of an actual presidential pardon and other than the pardon Ford issued for Nixon, I couldn't find one. In that case, Ford actually signed it.

Has anybody here been issued a presidential pardon that they'd like to post?
 
(Does anyone here think the President can rescind a pardon and, if so, why?)


If rules can be bent to allow Hillary to be Secretary of State, I see no problem with the pardon situation. Different circumstances, same arrogance.
 
If rules can be bent to allow Hillary to be Secretary of State, I see no problem with the pardon situation. Different circumstances, same arrogance.

Possible translation:
I'm not that interested in your question, but I feel like taking a shot at some Democrat and I haven't said anything negative about a Clinton for a few posts so I'll take a shot at Hillary
Another possibility:
Yes, once a pardon is unquestionably granted a president has no legal authority to rescind it, but if I said that I'd be agreeing with you and since on principle I never openly agree with you about anything I think I'll take a shot at Hillary instead.
ETA: Here's a link to a pardon for Lenny Bruce for obscenity by the governor of New York. It's the closest thing to a presidential pardon other than the Nixon pardon that I've found.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/lbrucepardon1.html

The pardon looks pretty much like what I expected and my guess is that it took effect when Pataki signed it. For that matter the Nixon pardon didn't offer any surprises either.
 
Last edited:
If rules can be bent to allow Hillary to be Secretary of State, I see no problem with the pardon situation. Different circumstances, same arrogance.

Dave's interpretations aside, I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.

I haven't dug too deeply into the Secretary of State thing, but my understanding of the problem is that the position had been given a pay raise recently by the congress of which Clinton was a member. The "bending of the rules" is to take that pay raise away from Clinton so there is no conflict of interest.

That's hardly the same thing as the President assuming a Constitutional power that is not specified to him.
 
Well, this is disappointing. Not only is Upchurch cavalierly throwing my interpretations aside but nobody has posted a copy of their presidential pardon yet.

I can only conclude that the JREF posters who have gotten presidential pardons have decided to retain their anonymity and not reveal the documents here.
 
This article discusses some of the earlier cases where the granting of a pardon has been stopped.

http://pardonpower.com/2008/12/on-revocation-of-pardons.html

In reading a little more about this, it seems absolutely clear that the president can not revoke a pardon (regardless of Ms. Clinton's foibles). The only issue is at what point in the process the pardon is actually granted. Assuming an unconditional pardon the possibilities are:
1. When it is announced.
2. When the president issues the order for somebody to execute the pardon.
3. When the designated individual executes the pardon.
4. When the pardon is delivered.

In the Toussie case, the pardon was announced and the President seems to have signed a warrant that ordered the execution of a pardon for Toussie and others. But the pardon was not executed or delivered.

The only legal precedent seems to be that pardons aren't in effect until they are delivered. But current legal thinking is that they are in effect when they are executed, maybe because dead people often receive pardons these days. I think executed means signed by the presidentially authorized individual.

There are arguments, that Toussie's lawyers will no doubt make, that the presidential pardons are in effect when they are announced or when the president orders that they be executed. My guess is that Toussie's lawyers are going to charge a lot of money making that case but in the end Toussie will still be unpardoned and his parents will have spent a lot of money on expensive lawyers that accomplish nothing. And of course the 28K or so the parents gave to the RNC for greasing the process and the money they've give to various lawyers along the way to gain special access will be gone also. Their money might have been better spent if they used it to get the Israeli leadership to request the pardon. That seemed to be the bit that helped Marc Rich the most.

And on the Marc Rich pardon subject, the internet discussions on this topic often include the idea that Rove is behind the Toussie pardon reversal because he's trying to undermine the Eric Holder appointment for AG because of the Marc Rich Pardon and this pardon would weaken Rove's case. Pick your conspiracy theory and take your chances.
 
Last edited:
Then again, maybe he had a signing statement covering it up his sleeve.
 
The only issue is at what point in the process the pardon is actually granted. Assuming an unconditional pardon the possibilities are:
1. When it is announced.
2. When the president issues the order for somebody to execute the pardon.
3. When the designated individual executes the pardon.
4. When the pardon is delivered.
Based on my experience* as an armchair Supreme Court justice, number 2 seems to me to be the critical step in the chain. That is the point where the President is exercising his constitutional power. Everything else is bureaucracy carrying out the pardon.



* which is very little
 
Based on my experience* as an armchair Supreme Court justice, number 2 seems to me to be the critical step in the chain. That is the point where the President is exercising his constitutional power. Everything else is bureaucracy carrying out the pardon.



* which is very little

Well, it may seem that way but legal precedent suggests otherwise. The supremes have yet to chime in and may reverse the standing precedent, but until they do, bush is on firm legal ground.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom