Bush Revokes Pardon for Isaac Toussie One Day Later

[boloboffin]

Just when I honestly thought Bush had no more power to outrage me...

Today Bush took a second look at the case of Isaac Toussie, a pardon he had issued yesterday. It had come under wide criticism because Toussie's father had been a large contributor to the Republican Party. "(B)ased on information that has subsequently come to light," said Dana Perino, and the appearance of impropriety, Toussie's pardon would be revoked.

No president in the history of this Union has EVER rescinded a pardon once granted. The very idea raises an murky point that will truly be a worse blot on Bush's record than the original pardon ever would have been.

For example, how long does a President have to rescind a pardon? What would stop some future President from being hacked off by a recipient of a pardon down the road (say, a person who did something illegal for the president) -- what would stop this President from rescinding a pardon seven years down the road?

Since Presidents have the power of pardon exclusively, can a President rescind the pardon of a former President? If not, why not? Bill Clinton, maybe Barack Obama can solve that little Marc Rich problem of yours. And maybe Scooter Libby should start practicing his shackle walk.

Is it too late to start impeachment proceedings against this absolute stain on American democracy? Hanging is too good for him!

 

[Upchurch]

link?

eta:

link

eta2:

The only way I can think this could possibly be legal is if the paperwork somehow hadn't been finalized yet.

 

[boloboffin]

Even that lede is misleading: an "extremely rare" move? How about "unprecedented"? It's not extremely rare, it's never been done before ever, EVER. Jim-ma-knee-X-mas!

 

[Upchurch]

from the article:

Doug Berman, a law professor at Ohio State University and a close follower of presidential clemency decisions, said the White House decision strikes him as unprecedented, but he said it's not inconceivable that it had happened in the past.

 

[boloboffin]

The things you learn.

It has been done before. In fact, it was done by Grant to two pardons by Andrew Johnson. The pardons had been released to a courier and Grant moved heaven and earth to stop the courier and cancel the pardons.

The story is in the New York Times, 1869.

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9F06E6DF1F3CEF34BC4F53DFB5668382679FDE (pdf)

So you aren't pardoned until you get your mitts around the deed itself.

ETA: Bush is still a and his leaving office won't be soon enough for me.

 

[davefoc]

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

But I thought he did something right here. He announced that he was going to pardon a guy, he learned something that made him change his mind about the pardon and he reversed himself. It looked to me like he was a guy that wanted to do the right thing to me.

Is it possible that he cared about making the right decision more than the momentary embarrassment to his administration for reversing the decision Or perhaps he is just aware how Clinton's last minute pardons are a permanent stain on his record and he thought he'd just like to avoid one more embarrassing event on his watch?

As a matter of law, it seems very unlikely that a president can rescind a pardon. All he can rescind is the intention to give a pardon and I assume that is what Bush did here. But I might be wrong, perhaps somebody is interested enough in this issue to investigate and correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Beerina]

link?

eta:

link

eta2:

The only way I can think this could possibly be legal is if the paperwork somehow hadn't been finalized yet.

Ding! That's all I can think, too.

Otherwise, once he signs on the form, it's a done deal. End of story.

Kind of like if the president dies, the VP immediately becomes president, no oath needed, though they do take an oath for the purposes of cameras and continuity and easing the public's mind.

 

[INRM]

Isn't that sort of like double-jeopardy. You're pardoned and free, then suddenly the guy changes his mind and back you go?

 

[hgc]

As a matter of law, it seems very unlikely that a president can rescind a pardon. All he can rescind is the intention to give a pardon and I assume that is what Bush did here. But I might be wrong, perhaps somebody is interested enough in this issue to investigate and correct me if I'm wrong.

Interesting case. He maybe can change his mind about his intention, but he can't unring the bell that he announced it publicly already. The constitution says the Pres has the power to pardon, and nothing about the various mechanisms for processing that decision and making notifications. So is Toussie pardoned, permanently? Perhaps. It will be tested in court.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Just when I honestly thought Bush had no more power to outrage me...

Today Bush took a second look at the case of Isaac Toussie, a pardon he had issued yesterday. It had come under wide criticism because Toussie's father had been a large contributor to the Republican Party. "(B)ased on information that has subsequently come to light," said Dana Perino, and the appearance of impropriety, Toussie's pardon would be revoked.

No president in the history of this Union has EVER rescinded a pardon once granted. The very idea raises an murky point that will truly be a worse blot on Bush's record than the original pardon ever would have been.

For example, how long does a President have to rescind a pardon? What would stop some future President from being hacked off by a recipient of a pardon down the road (say, a person who did something illegal for the president) -- what would stop this President from rescinding a pardon seven years down the road?

Since Presidents have the power of pardon exclusively, can a President rescind the pardon of a former President? If not, why not? Bill Clinton, maybe Barack Obama can solve that little Marc Rich problem of yours. And maybe Scooter Libby should start practicing his shackle walk.

Is it too late to start impeachment proceedings against this absolute stain on American democracy? Hanging is too good for him!

What a weird turn of events.

Dear President Bush:

The job ain't over until the paperwork is done. I guess you never learned that in Harvard Business School. You appear once again to have let your mouth overload your lightweight ass. This embarassment need never have happened. Why did it? If, as hgc suggests, this will get tested in court, you ought to pay for court costs since your carelessness is the root cause of this ever needing to go to court.​

Signed

A disgusted Sith Citizen​

DR

 

[WildCat]

So Bush changes his mind and doesn't issue a pardon, leading to calls for his impeachment?

Move along, nothing to see here but more BDS.

 

[boloboffin]

So Bush changes his mind and doesn't issue a pardon, leading to calls for his impeachment?

Move along, nothing to see here but more BDS.

So some conservative oversimplifies a constitutional question which is going to see its day in court and uses it to bash liberals?

Move along, nothing to see here.

 

[davefoc]

I tried to pin down a bit what was going on.

It sounds like Bush may have signed the pardon. The issue is when the pardon actually is established.

Is it when it is signed or when it is delivered?

Apparently there was some case law that established the pardon goes in to effect when it is delivered to the warden of the jail where an inmate is living.

This goes to what is a more general legal question. At what point in time does a contract take effect? Is it at the exact moment that all relevant parties have signed it?

It sounds like Bush might lose this issue and the point of pardon will be judged to be the actual signing. But I didn't find anything definitive that Bush had actually signed it so I, at least, remain a bit confused as to what is going on here.

 

[boloboffin]

Apparently the President doesn't sign pardons anymore. He requests the Pardon Attorney to execute them, and in this case, he called after the warrant had been sent but before the pardon was executed. Toussie had, of course, been notified of his pardon in this new age. Du Puy may not be the precedent after all. And it's possible that the unitary executive theory may turn around and bite Bush on this point.

The question in my mind is: Can the Supreme Court (or any court) actually weigh in on this matter without a separation of powers issue? The language of the Constitution might possibly prevent it, though the courts have made rulings on the pardon issue before.

 

[Upchurch]

The question in my mind is: Can the Supreme Court (or any court) actually weigh in on this matter without a separation of powers issue?

Why not? The ability of the President to rescind a pardon is not a power granted in the Constitution. (Assuming it is determined that he did, in fact, pardon the guy and then subsequently rescinded it.) It would seem to me that this is a matter of interpreting the Constitution and, thus, a matter for the Supreme Court.

The language of the Constitution might possibly prevent it

How so?

 

[Darth Rotor]

So some conservative oversimplifies a constitutional question which is going to see its day in court and uses it to bash liberals?

Move along, nothing to see here.

Is it too late to start impeachment proceedings against this absolute stain on American democracy? Hanging is too good for him!

Bolo:

That's the BDS. Get a grip. He's leaving in three weeks or so.

The rest of your OP was very interesting, in terms of how a simple task was goofed up by the sitting President.

DR

 

[boloboffin]

Bolo:

That's the BDS. Get a grip. He's leaving in three weeks or so.

The rest of your OP was very interesting, in terms of how a simple task was goofed up by the sitting President.

DR

You get a grip. That's obvious hyperbole typed under extreme aggrevation and based on the sum total of Bush's failings.

ETA: Something that would have been more evident had my tags been left alone (specifically the "don't let door hit you" and "where Good Lord split you").

 

[davefoc]

Apparently the President doesn't sign pardons anymore. He requests the Pardon Attorney to execute them, and in this case, he called after the warrant had been sent but before the pardon was executed. Toussie had, of course, been notified of his pardon in this new age. Du Puy may not be the precedent after all. And it's possible that the unitary executive theory may turn around and bite Bush on this point.

...

It is amazing how many words have been written about this subject and yet the straightforward details about what happened still don't seem to be available.

What does boloboffin's post mean? OK, the president requested the Pardon Attorney to execute a pardon. What exactly does that mean? Did the president sign a memo saying execute the pardon? Did he have a list of people to be pardoned and he signed something that requested that the people on the list be pardoned? Was the request to execute the pardon conditional on the good judgment of the designated individual to execute the pardon? Did he make some casual verbal request that somebody do something about the pardons to be granted? Who knows right now?

And what does warrant issued mean? Does that mean there is a piece of paper that has been signed by the president's designee that the guy is pardoned? Does that mean that the president's designee signed a piece of paper saying that the guy is pardoned after the warrant is executed? With so much uninformed ambiguous reporting on the web about this incident it seems to be impossible to discern anything relevant about the probable dispossition of this case.

[uniformed speculation mode]
My assumption at the beginning was that a pardon can't be rescinded and I think that is still very likely to be true. Based on something, somebody in the Bush administration seems to believe this pardon has not been granted and relevant information with regard to the basis for this individual's opinion does not yet seem to be available.

My guess is the mere announcement of a pardon does not consitute the granting of a pardon and the president could still reverse a pardon that has been announced but not granted. My further guess is that there is an actual piece of paper that says something like "[recipient's name] is hereby granted a pardon for [whatever the recipient was convicted of], signed by [the presiden't designee] as authorized by the President of the United States". Additionally, I guess that once this piece of paper is signed, even before it is notarized or stamped with some official government stamp, the recipient is pardoned. (Assuming the pardon didn't have conditions that needed to be fulfilled before the pardon was granted). If that hasn't happened in this case, this guy is not pardoned and no amount of legal wrangling is going to get him pardoned.

If this piece of paper was signed, but not delivered, the Bush administration might still be able to prevent the pardon, but if this is what the issue is, my bet is that the pardon will stand.

[/uniformed speculation mode]

 

[boloboffin]

Why not? The ability of the President to rescind a pardon is not a power granted in the Constitution. (Assuming it is determined that he did, in fact, pardon the guy and then subsequently rescinded it.) It would seem to me that this is a matter of interpreting the Constitution and, thus, a matter for the Supreme Court.


How so?

I was not remembering the language of the Constitution correctly. I thought it said something like "has the sole power of pardon," which sounds like everybody else back off. But the Constitution just grants him the power, and the Supreme Court has ruled on the power before, according to Wiki.

 

[Upchurch]

My guess is the mere announcement of a pardon does not consitute the granting of a pardon and the president could still reverse a pardon that has been announced but not granted. My further guess is that there is an actual piece of paper that says something like "[recipient's name] is hereby granted a pardon for [whatever the recipient was convicted of], signed by [the presiden't designee] as authorized by the President of the United States". Additionally, I guess that once this piece of paper is signed, even before it is notarized or stamped with some official government stamp, the recipient is pardoned. (Assuming the pardon didn't have conditions that needed to be fulfilled before the pardon was granted). If that hasn't happened in this case, this guy is not pardoned and no amount of legal wrangling is going to get him pardoned.

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.

Call it BDS if you like, but Bush does seem to have a way of pushing the limits of the Constitution, even if accidentally.