R
Raymond
Guest
Can the President Pardon Me?
Chris Suellentrop
Two hours before leaving office, President Clinton pardoned 176
Americans, including figures from the Whitewater scandal, a fugitive
whose ex-wife raised $320,000 for the Democratic Party in the past two
years, and his own brother. Is there anyone the president can't
pardon?
Yes. The president cannot pardon someone for a state offense. Article
II, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the president the "Power to
Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States,
except in Cases of Impeachment."That means the president can pardon
only for federal crimes.
The president's pardon power is much more extensive than the Texas
governor's, who can't grant clemency to a death-row inmate. But now
that he's president, George W. Bush can't even grant Texas prisoners
the 30-day reprieve that the state constitution allows. That's up to
Texas' new governor, Rick Perry
--- Phillip Chase Bobbitt and Sanford V. Levinson, professors of
constitutional law at the University of Texas School of Law.
http://www.slate.com/id/1006923/
The Wrong Messages Sent - And Received
----- by Andrew Cohen:
The White House has made it more difficult for federal prosecutors
around the country to push for tough sentences in these sorts of cases
- or even to push for indictments or convictions at all.
Libby Reprieve Shows Rule Of Law Is Different For White House Friends
There is no use arguing about President George W. Bush's power to
pardon or commute the 30-month prison sentence of I. Lewis "Scooter"
Libby, the former White House official convicted earlier this year of
perjury and obstruction of justice. A president's authority here is
absolute and acts like a trump card to neutralize the judicial and
legislative branches. You can say it is not right. Or unfair. Or
unjust. But you can't say that it isn't in the Constitution or within
the president's purview.
Nor is it particularly useful to debate the impact of the political
fallout from the president's dramatic decision. It is what it is and
the president clearly understood that he would satisfy his
conservative base and disappoint just about everyone else in the
country by cutting a deal for his old friend and "loyal Bushie" even
before the appeals process had fully played itself out. The simple
truth is this: President Bush doesn't necessarily care what the
fallout is because he doesn't have to; enough people detest his
presidency anyway and he will not be standing for election anytime
soon.
But it is worthwhile to consider the damage that the timing and
symbolism of the president's decision has and will have on the
executive branch's continuing ability to enforce the law between now
and the end of the Bush presidency, still a full 18 months away. By
commuting Libby's sentence now, by coming down so publicly and
resolutely against what the president called an "excessive" sentence,"
the White House has made it more difficult for federal prosecutors
around the country to push for tough sentences in these sorts of cases
- or even to push for indictments or convictions at all. It's a lame-
duck maneuver that comes far too far from the end of the second term;
a hail-Mary pass at the beginning, not the end of the fourth quarter.
This is especially true because of the crimes of which Libby was
convicted. Because they focus upon the truth of the information that
wends its way into cases, and because they demand a level of honesty
from all participants under the law, both perjury and obstruction of
justice matters go to the very heart of the justice system. That is
why prosecutors like to bring high-profile obstruction and perjury
cases-see, e.g., United States v. Martha Stewart. When they do, they
are able to send with great economy a loud and clear message to the
thousands of other people in the country who are called upon every day
to testify truthfully before a grand jury, or when called upon to do
so by federal investigators or at trial.
That message is: When the law comes calling, behave, tell the truth,
play it straight, don't obfuscate and don't play games; because if you
do, you can get in big trouble - prison trouble. But the message
President Bush delivered Monday when he spared Libby from prison is
precisely the opposite. Libby's commutation says this: If you commit
perjury and obstruction of justice and you receive a throaty prison
term you deserve a break because your punishment is excessive. If you
are a "good" person and have done "good" things for this country and
you are a Washington insider, then the White House will get your back
even though those good things didn't convince an expert - the trial
judge - to cut you a break.
So at a time when men and women are languishing in prison for
relatively minor crimes - life sentences, in some cases, thanks to
those overwrought "three strikes" rules - President Bush just told the
nation that a single day in prison is too harsh for a guy who
repeatedly lied under oath and then failed to show any remorse about
it. This from a man who as governor of Texas routinely and with savage
consistently denied clemency requests from death row inmates whose
capital trials were travesties upon justice. And, to boot, the
president thumbed his nose at the jury and its verdict by declaring
that Libby's fine and probation were sufficient punishment for his
crimes. After what they said about him following his trial, it's even
money or less that Libby's jurors would have sentenced him to prison
time had they been given the chance. Anyone out there want to prove me
wrong? The president never even talked with Libby's prosecutor about
the commutation, much less any of the jurors whose months of hard work
and dedication now gets an asterisk placed by it.
Moreover, the Libby commutation is bad symbolism for the White House
because it plays precisely into the hands of an ever-increasing band
of critics who say that this administration has consistently and with
risible defiance operated under two different rules of law: one for
itself and one for the rest of us. The commutation came, remember, one
week after the White House declared it would invoke "executive
privilege" to try to block a Congressional investigation and just a
few weeks after the vice president's office defended itself from a
national security review by declaring it was not part of the executive
branch. It came from a White House that has defended an indefensibly
lame attorney general and a chaotic Justice Department. It came from
an administration that changed our rules about torture and engaged in
warrantless domestic surveillance.
Experts can and do argue over the legal justifications for all of
those executive branch policies and practices. But the common theme is
indisputable. This White House does what it wants to do, offers some
sort of legal defense or argument after doing it, and then dares
leaders in the other branches, or anyone else, to stop it. This time,
with Libby, there is no stopping the president. Once again, he has
done something because he could have and not manifestly because he
should have. It's another humbling legacy for this White House; one
that will last as long as people remember what Libby did, why he did
it and how and for what reasons he was able to walk away from it all
thanks to his loyal and stubborn buddy in power.
By Andrew Cohen
Chris Suellentrop
Two hours before leaving office, President Clinton pardoned 176
Americans, including figures from the Whitewater scandal, a fugitive
whose ex-wife raised $320,000 for the Democratic Party in the past two
years, and his own brother. Is there anyone the president can't
pardon?
Yes. The president cannot pardon someone for a state offense. Article
II, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the president the "Power to
Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States,
except in Cases of Impeachment."That means the president can pardon
only for federal crimes.
The president's pardon power is much more extensive than the Texas
governor's, who can't grant clemency to a death-row inmate. But now
that he's president, George W. Bush can't even grant Texas prisoners
the 30-day reprieve that the state constitution allows. That's up to
Texas' new governor, Rick Perry
--- Phillip Chase Bobbitt and Sanford V. Levinson, professors of
constitutional law at the University of Texas School of Law.
http://www.slate.com/id/1006923/
The Wrong Messages Sent - And Received
----- by Andrew Cohen:
The White House has made it more difficult for federal prosecutors
around the country to push for tough sentences in these sorts of cases
- or even to push for indictments or convictions at all.
Libby Reprieve Shows Rule Of Law Is Different For White House Friends
There is no use arguing about President George W. Bush's power to
pardon or commute the 30-month prison sentence of I. Lewis "Scooter"
Libby, the former White House official convicted earlier this year of
perjury and obstruction of justice. A president's authority here is
absolute and acts like a trump card to neutralize the judicial and
legislative branches. You can say it is not right. Or unfair. Or
unjust. But you can't say that it isn't in the Constitution or within
the president's purview.
Nor is it particularly useful to debate the impact of the political
fallout from the president's dramatic decision. It is what it is and
the president clearly understood that he would satisfy his
conservative base and disappoint just about everyone else in the
country by cutting a deal for his old friend and "loyal Bushie" even
before the appeals process had fully played itself out. The simple
truth is this: President Bush doesn't necessarily care what the
fallout is because he doesn't have to; enough people detest his
presidency anyway and he will not be standing for election anytime
soon.
But it is worthwhile to consider the damage that the timing and
symbolism of the president's decision has and will have on the
executive branch's continuing ability to enforce the law between now
and the end of the Bush presidency, still a full 18 months away. By
commuting Libby's sentence now, by coming down so publicly and
resolutely against what the president called an "excessive" sentence,"
the White House has made it more difficult for federal prosecutors
around the country to push for tough sentences in these sorts of cases
- or even to push for indictments or convictions at all. It's a lame-
duck maneuver that comes far too far from the end of the second term;
a hail-Mary pass at the beginning, not the end of the fourth quarter.
This is especially true because of the crimes of which Libby was
convicted. Because they focus upon the truth of the information that
wends its way into cases, and because they demand a level of honesty
from all participants under the law, both perjury and obstruction of
justice matters go to the very heart of the justice system. That is
why prosecutors like to bring high-profile obstruction and perjury
cases-see, e.g., United States v. Martha Stewart. When they do, they
are able to send with great economy a loud and clear message to the
thousands of other people in the country who are called upon every day
to testify truthfully before a grand jury, or when called upon to do
so by federal investigators or at trial.
That message is: When the law comes calling, behave, tell the truth,
play it straight, don't obfuscate and don't play games; because if you
do, you can get in big trouble - prison trouble. But the message
President Bush delivered Monday when he spared Libby from prison is
precisely the opposite. Libby's commutation says this: If you commit
perjury and obstruction of justice and you receive a throaty prison
term you deserve a break because your punishment is excessive. If you
are a "good" person and have done "good" things for this country and
you are a Washington insider, then the White House will get your back
even though those good things didn't convince an expert - the trial
judge - to cut you a break.
So at a time when men and women are languishing in prison for
relatively minor crimes - life sentences, in some cases, thanks to
those overwrought "three strikes" rules - President Bush just told the
nation that a single day in prison is too harsh for a guy who
repeatedly lied under oath and then failed to show any remorse about
it. This from a man who as governor of Texas routinely and with savage
consistently denied clemency requests from death row inmates whose
capital trials were travesties upon justice. And, to boot, the
president thumbed his nose at the jury and its verdict by declaring
that Libby's fine and probation were sufficient punishment for his
crimes. After what they said about him following his trial, it's even
money or less that Libby's jurors would have sentenced him to prison
time had they been given the chance. Anyone out there want to prove me
wrong? The president never even talked with Libby's prosecutor about
the commutation, much less any of the jurors whose months of hard work
and dedication now gets an asterisk placed by it.
Moreover, the Libby commutation is bad symbolism for the White House
because it plays precisely into the hands of an ever-increasing band
of critics who say that this administration has consistently and with
risible defiance operated under two different rules of law: one for
itself and one for the rest of us. The commutation came, remember, one
week after the White House declared it would invoke "executive
privilege" to try to block a Congressional investigation and just a
few weeks after the vice president's office defended itself from a
national security review by declaring it was not part of the executive
branch. It came from a White House that has defended an indefensibly
lame attorney general and a chaotic Justice Department. It came from
an administration that changed our rules about torture and engaged in
warrantless domestic surveillance.
Experts can and do argue over the legal justifications for all of
those executive branch policies and practices. But the common theme is
indisputable. This White House does what it wants to do, offers some
sort of legal defense or argument after doing it, and then dares
leaders in the other branches, or anyone else, to stop it. This time,
with Libby, there is no stopping the president. Once again, he has
done something because he could have and not manifestly because he
should have. It's another humbling legacy for this White House; one
that will last as long as people remember what Libby did, why he did
it and how and for what reasons he was able to walk away from it all
thanks to his loyal and stubborn buddy in power.
By Andrew Cohen