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 DO NOT 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.