Question for LawyerRon or anybodyelse who knows

[waiting]

Is it "legally" possible for Clinton to pardon himself?
______________
This thread has been moved from General Discussion to Political Auditorium ... where it belongs.

[Edited by archie on 12-23-2000 at 12:05 AM]

[Kubie]

I was thinking the same thing. The way Clinton has run rough shod over the constitution, I wouldn't put it past him to try. Remember, the Dems believe the constitution is a "living, breathing document" and can be changed on a whim.

[LawyerRon]

There's no case law on the exact issue so there's no definite answer. My guess would be the Justices on the Court would first look at the intent of the Founding Fathers as a starting point. Their conclusion in my view would be that "no" a president can't pardon himself.

[waverider]

I hope Lawyer Ron is right, Mr. Clinton has gotten away with too much for too long. It is time for justice to triumph.

[M. A. Dockter]

forum@pcmech.com has gotten WAY too many e-mails regarding this thread. All of them are replies to e-mails initially sent via this forum, and not via standard SMTP.

To those of you replying to messages regarding this thread, please make sure the e-mail provided in the body of the letter is in the "To:" portion of the reply, as the body directly says.

From now on, failure to do this will result in a public posting of the e-mail received, as most of us grew up with this type of thing in school (if you get caught passing notes, it's read allowed in class). Hopefully this is an incentive for everyone to remember to put the correct e-mail address in the "reply to" portion.

I am doing this because I have seen a few things that the forum e-mail system should NOT be used for...defamation of character is one. As a side note, I <B>DO NOT</b> log these e-mails...it showed up in my mailbox because someone forgot to change the "To:" portion of an e-mail coming from this forum.

To those misusing the system, this is an anonymous warning (but all Mods and Admin's know who you are). Continued use will result in further action.

On a personal note, the misuse of a free system like this not only disrespects the ones you write about, but the ones that work hard to keep it up and going.

[Edited by M. A. Dockter on 12-23-2000 at 09:29 PM]

[waverider]

Hi M.A. Dockter, I am sorry but I am not understanding what you are telling us here.Please explain just what it is that people are doing wrong. I apologise for my lack of understanding. Thank you. Happy Holidays.

[waiting]

To: M.A. Dockter--What is SMTP? Your second paragraph stated: "To those of you replying to messages regarding this thread, please make sure the e-mail provided in the body of the letter is in the "To:" portion of the reply, as the body directly says." Could you please clarify?
Apparently pcmech.com is receiving e-mails regarding this thread? Why don't people post their remarks here like the rest of us?? What are these e-mails saying?
Sorry, but I don't understand. Could you please clarify. Thank you. Merry Christmas. Looking forward to your reply.

[LawyerRon]

w-rider and waiting,
I echo your remarks.

[waiting]

LawyerRon: Thanks for your support..MerryXmas

[M. A. Dockter]

At one point, by clicking on the "mail" icon under a person's post, you could fill out a forum to e-mail them. A person called "A" (Expample) did this, and so sent an e-mail to "B". When "B" got it, the return address was forum@pcmech.com, because it came from a form on this Forum. "B" just hit reply and did not read the part of the message that stated "Don't reply directy, reply to 'A'@domain.root".

I have since changed this for the sake of simplicity. The e-mail button will now display e-mail addresses, so people can use their normal e-mail client to send via SMTP (how 75% of e-mail on the net is sent in the world...hence the need for a SMTP server from your ISP, unless you use AOL, which uses it's own way to send mail with in it's system) so no form is used unless the person registering chooses not to have their e-mail address displaied, then there is no mail icon.

[waverider]

Thank you M.A.Dockter for the clarification, Happy New Year

[waiting]

To: M.A.Docter--Thanks for answering my questions.

[bdunn]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by waiting
[B]Is it "legally" possible for Clinton to pardon himself?

Not really but if he chooses to resign a day early I think acting president Gore could find the time to pardon him.

[Gintaras]

Originally posted by bdunn

Not really but if he chooses to resign a day early I think acting president Gore could find the time to pardon him.

I that case both Clinton & Gore would admit that Clinton is guilty.

[waiting]

Hi Gintaras: If Gore pardoned Clinton----do you think it would hurt Gore's chances with his 2004 nomination? How do you think the Democrats would react to this? Any ideas?

[Gintaras]

Clinton won't step down, Gore is done, and for 2004 will run Hillary- she might win[I give 50% knowing american public], I told my friend long before elections that Hillry will win over Lazio.

Problem is in people that go to Elections, problems is in people that they believe politicaians lying to them,
Problem is in coruption.
Problem is the same in US, Germany had in 1930's, Russia in late 19 century/beginning of 20th.

Americans MUST learn lessons of Russia and Germany, to avoid similar outcomes.

I might be wrong[I wish I were], but if happens anything close, remember my words.

[LawyerRon]

Gintaras,
Unfortunately, the only thing Lazio had going for himself was that he wasn't Hillary.

Everyone knows Hillary is despised by the Rebublicans.

But I think she's secretly hated by many Democrats too. I have this hunch that she's not as well liked in the Dem. party as the media would lead you to think.

Anybody want to comment on my theory?

[Gintaras]

Does Clintons care who like them or not?

[waverider]

I wonder if our country is ready for a woman president, any woman, not necessarily Hillary.

[troysvihl]

To tell you the truth, I really thought Lazio was going to trounce Hillary. NY has such a record of dark horse candidates coming from behind on election day. (But then again, I thought Hilary was the dark horse in the early part of the campaign)


As for a Hillary bid in 2004, put it into perspective. Lazio lost by something like 8% I think. Like LawyerRon said, the only thing that he got votes for was that he wasn't Hilary. That was his entire campaign. Also keep in mind that NY is arguably the most democratic state in the nation. So Hilary wins by 8% in the most democratic state in the nation when her only candidate has no message or platform. Put her against any candidate with a platform and throw in the other states that are much less democratic if not conservative and you wind up with a big loss for her in 2004. (I think Texas just passed NY as the second most populous state in the nation, and that means more electoral votes) Personally, I hope that the Dems run her.



Wasn't it funny the way Gore was always talking about how the founder's original intent in the Constitution was to have every vote counted? I wonder how he meshes that original intent view with his living document view?

[Edited by troysvihl on 12-31-2000 at 05:28 AM]

[bob]

"/Anybody want to comment on my theory?/"

Agree. 25% less chance than Gore in 2004. Few men would vote for the Dragon Lady.

[stylin19]

Happy New Year....

IF ( and it's not such a big if.. ) Hillary Clinton divorces Bill....she wins !

[bdunn]

I hope you are wrong. I voted for Lazio. I am registered democratic but vote for moderates on both sides. I think NY learned. There is a bill in the state legislature to increase the residency requirement for perspective legislators.

[waiting]

When do you think The USA will be ready for a woman President? Hopefully never for a Hillary type!!!!Any comments out there???

[LawyerRon]

Not until women want a woman President.

[bdunn]

I could see a woman president. In fact if Elizabeth Dole had made it thru the primary she probably would have beat Gore straight up not requiring the supreme courts coronation which decided this election.

[kraken]

Eh dudes

Bill stepped out with a 65% approval rating. Bill for prez in 2004.

[LawyerRon]

Bill would have easily been elected again if he could've run.

In terms of performance, I don't think he was necessarily a bad president. However, what I hold him accountable for, as well as millions of other Americans, is the disgrace he brought upon himself and the Office.

[bdunn]

Originally posted by LawyerRon
Bill would have easily been elected again if he could've run.

Could he run again? I know you can't be elected more than twice consecutively but how about nonconsecutively.

[LawyerRon]

Two terms total are allowed:

Amendment XXII

"Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."

The second provision applies to something like a Gerald Ford scenario.

[HAL9000]

What I don't understand is what all the fuss is about. The only difference with Bill and previous presidents is that he got caught! Gimme a break if you think that all previous presidents were holy as God and that future presidents are going to be any better. The public should be keeping it big nose out of the situation. Bill has his own issues to work out with his family that's going to follow him for life. Have any of you ever messed around on a girlfriend or wife? Do you want it broadcast all over the world for years? He made a mistake like thousands of other men and women, he is no longer prez, let it go already.

My 2 cents, 0.0133111 USD

[waverider]

So if I understand correctly, Bill Clinton could not run again, Thank Goodness.

[LawyerRon]

Hal,
I'd say 65% of Americans agree with you. It depends on what your view of the Presidency is; Some people hold the view that the President isn't a person, it's an Institution. These are the people that have a problem with Bill.

Other people don't much care what the President does in private, so long as it doesn't affect them.


What I had a problem with was, not that he had an affair, but the way he tried to manipulate the legal system, lie, commit perjury under oath, etc.

I think if he would have just come out and said, "Yes, I had an affair, I'm human, I'm sorry", etc., that would have been the end of it. Instead, he said "It wasn't really sex, etc.", tried to get real cute under cross examination, ("It depends on what the meaning of "is" is") and so forth.

People forget he was fined $25,000 by Federal Judge Susan Webber Wright for giving "misleading" statements under oath. Hal, this is a very serious charge and must be taken as such.

He may very well go down in history as one of our greatest Presidents-time will tell. But it's the apparent lack of honesty that most people object to about Bill.

[waiting]

LawyerRon: Thanks for the amendment XX11 info...sounds good. Hope its correct. It would be awful if there was
an amendment XX111.....Politicans are pretty slippery.

[HAL9000]

Yes, that I agree with Ron. His biggest mistake was the atempted cover up. Although I'm Canadian, I felt that all this aside, he really didn't do that bad of a job.

[Xayd]

In hindsight, Clinton had a lucky streak that rivals even the undefeated Miami Dolphins in the early 70s.

1) Alan Greenspan took care of economic stability for him, DESPITE what he managed to run through congress budget-wise.

2) When what he wanted to do failed, Republicans took congress, which pretty much made for a "ho-hum" second four years, so he didn't get much bad press for what he couldn't propose ;).

3) Depsite his many many shortcomings, he was the darling of the media, he was their guy, so he could do no wrong to the casual observer.

All of these added to the fact that the Republican party manages to screw up everything they get going, and it was a downhill ride for him.

The Bush presidency is gonna be a rocky one, IMHO. Look at what he's done with the abortion thing in the first weekend. That's STUPID of him, very stupid. Does abortion make a damn to the average person? Not in the least, but it's sacred to the press, they're gonna beat him senseless with it. I don't agree with abortion being legal, but I also don't agree with the personal fight that Republicans turn it into.

The problem with the Democratic party is they REALLY wanna be socialists, but can't get away with it. Can't trust em. The problem with the Republican party is they REALLY wanna bring us back to legislated Puritan morality, but they can't get away with it, so you can't really trust them either.

So, I have to choose on whether or not I'd like to keep my money or whether or not I need the local Church Group to have a say in what cable TV stations I get to watch. Not a great set of options.

The real problem, as I see it, is that Democracy has been BASTARDIZED by both sides of the current political spectrum. Democrats want to legislate economics, Republicans want to legislate morality. The founding fathers wanted neither to happen, but a little bit of both has happened. Why?

Because people are sheep. I have zero faith in the collective will of the population of this country. If people had any damn self respect, they'd refuse to participate in payroll witholding of taxes, ridiculous liquor consumption laws, attempts to censor and "rate" (what BS...) certain forms of entertainment, etc. I'd like to think that it'll only get so bad, and then there'll be another sort of "revolution" in which people will change the way we tolerate these things by refusal to accept the status quo, but I doubt it. European countries have had their tax rates shoot upwards of 75 percent, yet that revolution never comes for them, and they're just as "human" as we are.

The USA has so much potential, it's a shame those of us who want to realize it can't, and just have to "tolerate" the sheep who dictate direction to the whole nation, not because of any god-given right or personal abilty, but just because their sheer numbers staggering blindly in one direction tend to push the rest of us with them.

As a race, humans have made zero progress since the original industrial revolution that began in Europe. Royalty has been replaced by Politicians, the only difference being that Politicians can't have you executed for petty crimes against them (but then again they'd like to, some on the extreme right have proposed death penalties for drug "offenses", as if providing a product to a buyer is anything other than basic economics, calling that an "offense" is in itself offensive...). We let ourselves be ruled by scheisters instead of strong-armed thieves, is one better than the other? I don't really think so.

Honestly, I'm begging for the literacy test, history test, hell even algebra test to gain the right to vote.

The Democrats wanted to socialize the health care industry and make paying a doctor for service illegal.

The Republicans claim to support the constitution, but support the state having the authority to execute prisoners.

The Democrats want to stamp out certain businesses with environmental regulations.

The Republicans don't want me to be able to watch MTV, so they gather and pray outside of cable television stations in mass displays of ignorance.

The Democrats want to strip down or military to bare nothingness, despite the constitutional duty to maintain one.

The Republicans want to tear down economies that aren't "socially acceptable" to them (i.e. social drugs).

Every one of these stances on the above issues by BOTH parties would be laugable by the founding leaders of this country. Some would justify banishment from the counrty/removal of citizenship rights in my book, yet that aforementioned flock of sheep that is our general population tolerates all of this, because what happens down the street in your suburbanite little world is more important than what happens to the masses in the rest of the country. I'd wager that the founding fathers realized this fact of human tendency, and tried with the constitution to prevent us from being ourselves, above all else.

It was a very tough task for them to undertake and sadly, it seems to me that they failed.

[/rant]

Xayd

[Edited by Xayd on 01-23-2001 at 04:51 AM]

[waiting]

I believe LawyerRon is correct that Clinton can't run again to be president.....But what would happen if Hillary was elected in 2004?????????Would she bring slick willie with her???.....The press would love it

[LawyerRon]

I've considered that scenario. If she named him as her running mate, the issue is whether or not he could be Vice President. I would say nothing prevents him from serving as VP. Then, if Hillary dies in office, the issue would then be if he could assume the Presidency. The answer is clearly no (as the Amendment states) and I believe the next in line after the VP would assume the office.

[bob]

Xayd, I liked some of those comments on both sides.

Others should not fear the ghost of Clinton - fear the ghost of daddy Bush.

I beleive GWBush wants to impress his daddy and mommy by winning all the battles his daddy lost.

GW will split the country if he is unable concide anything to the congress.

The lack of consideration for the California power crisis makes me wonder if the last 2 of the Texas seven were describing Texas or Cuba.

[Xayd]

Heh, you'd be surprised on what we probably agree on Bob ;).

I've lost faith in both parties really. Politics has become too much hype, not enough sensibility. I for one have no problem with social programs like welfare and food stamps, these things don't cost that much, and considering what they cost I say let them go. It's not like anyone WANTS to live in a housing project, and letting them live there doesn't cost us much as a whole. That stuff is a personal fight, and personal fights have no place in political decisions.

I agree on the power thing in California. It was more important to de-fund peon abortion groups than it was to at least issue a statement on the power situation in CA?

If public utilites have to be monopolies, fine, their rates should be capped at a set amount plus annual inflation, period. If they don't like it, fine, we can expropriate their gear (like highway departments are so fond of doing to people's land), and bring in another company who agrees to those terms.

SWBell didn't like the idea of giving people extended local calling areas in Texas when I lived there, but when rumors of AT&T local phone service started flying, they oddly changed their minds.

Of course none of this can happen as long as utility companies can grease politicians, but that's how it should be nevertheless ;).

Xayd

[troysvihl]

xayd, how easily you justify taking other people's money and property.

[Edited by troysvihl on 01-25-2001 at 11:48 AM]

[Xayd]

I don't see public utilities as private companies. They are recognized monopolies, therefore they need a different set of rules.

If telcos had their way we'd be paying by the kilobyte for internet access (sorry Sarge, but ya know it's true).

A publicly recognized monopoly isn't the same as General Motors or even Microsoft. They should have a strict set of guidelines to operate in, and if they don't like them, they should have their monopoly status ripped away from them.

Xayd

[troysvihl]

many states have shown that the concept of natural monopolies are a myth by successfully deregulating utilities and bringing market forces to a sector of the economy that should have never been given monopoly status to begin with. don't be fooled into thinking that california's pseudo-deregulation is somehow evidence that utilities need to be monopolies.