Loading...

The only "shock" is stating the proposition now, before it's necessary to make the argument in a legal context. - Hallo friend WELCOME TO AMERICA, In the article you read this time with the title The only "shock" is stating the proposition now, before it's necessary to make the argument in a legal context., we have prepared well for this article you read and download the information therein. hopefully fill posts Article AMERICA, Article CULTURAL, Article ECONOMIC, Article POLITICAL, Article SECURITY, Article SOCCER, Article SOCIAL, we write this you can understand. Well, happy reading.

Title : The only "shock" is stating the proposition now, before it's necessary to make the argument in a legal context.
link : The only "shock" is stating the proposition now, before it's necessary to make the argument in a legal context.

The only "shock" is stating the proposition now, before it's necessary to make the argument in a legal context.

Screen grab from Drudge, linking to "President Trump 'probably does' have the power to pardon himself: Giuliani." Hmm. Drudge dropped the "probably" hedging. And Giuliani didn't decide to drop a bombshell, he was on TV and put in a position of having to answer a question:

When [George] Stephanopoulos asked if the president has the power to pardon himself, Giuliani said he "probably does."

"He has no intention of pardoning himself," said Giuliani, a former New York City mayor who is Trump's lead attorney in negotiating an end to Mueller's ongoing investigation. But it is a "really interesting constitutional argument: 'Can the president pardon himself?'"

Giuliani added, "I think the political ramifications of that would be tough. Pardoning other people is one thing. Pardoning yourself is another. Other presidents have pardoned people in circumstances like this, both in their administration and sometimes the next president even of a different party will come along and pardon."

So there's really no shock at all. Giuliani breezed past the legal question without seriously answering it and use the opportunity to talk about the political forces that constrain the use of the power the President "probably" has.

I think that's quite appropriate. The President is focused on his political fate, not what might happen in a criminal case in court, and as long as he's still in office as possessed of the power to pardon, the use of the presumed power to pardon himself would undermine his political position. Better to leave that for later, and trust that the next President will — like Ford for Nixon — save him from the ignominy of a criminally prosecuted former President. The new President won't want that riveting the country's attention, tearing us apart.

By the way, this question whether the President can pardon himself was big during the Bill Clinton administration. I remember it well because I used it for a Constitutional Law I exam, and I remember a colleague of mind scoffing at the question (without knowing I thought it was good enough for an exam). She just thought it was ridiculous because it wasn't going to happen. You can talk about the President pardoning himself, but it isn't going to happen. The political realities are such that it's never going to happen.

You might be wondering what's the answer to the exam and assuming I have if not a firm answer at least a preferred answer. I really didn't care which way the answers went. I wanted a demonstration of understanding and skill in applying methodologies of interpretation. It would be wise to begin with the text of the particular clause — "The President... shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment" — and wise not to end there.

Screen grab from Drudge, linking to "President Trump 'probably does' have the power to pardon himself: Giuliani." Hmm. Drudge dropped the "probably" hedging. And Giuliani didn't decide to drop a bombshell, he was on TV and put in a position of having to answer a question:

When [George] Stephanopoulos asked if the president has the power to pardon himself, Giuliani said he "probably does."

"He has no intention of pardoning himself," said Giuliani, a former New York City mayor who is Trump's lead attorney in negotiating an end to Mueller's ongoing investigation. But it is a "really interesting constitutional argument: 'Can the president pardon himself?'"

Giuliani added, "I think the political ramifications of that would be tough. Pardoning other people is one thing. Pardoning yourself is another. Other presidents have pardoned people in circumstances like this, both in their administration and sometimes the next president even of a different party will come along and pardon."

So there's really no shock at all. Giuliani breezed past the legal question without seriously answering it and use the opportunity to talk about the political forces that constrain the use of the power the

Loading...

President "probably" has.

I think that's quite appropriate. The President is focused on his political fate, not what might happen in a criminal case in court, and as long as he's still in office as possessed of the power to pardon, the use of the presumed power to pardon himself would undermine his political position. Better to leave that for later, and trust that the next President will — like Ford for Nixon — save him from the ignominy of a criminally prosecuted former President. The new President won't want that riveting the country's attention, tearing us apart.

By the way, this question whether the President can pardon himself was big during the Bill Clinton administration. I remember it well because I used it for a Constitutional Law I exam, and I remember a colleague of mind scoffing at the question (without knowing I thought it was good enough for an exam). She just thought it was ridiculous because it wasn't going to happen. You can talk about the President pardoning himself, but it isn't going to happen. The political realities are such that it's never going to happen.

You might be wondering what's the answer to the exam and assuming I have if not a firm answer at least a preferred answer. I really didn't care which way the answers went. I wanted a demonstration of understanding and skill in applying methodologies of interpretation. It would be wise to begin with the text of the particular clause — "The President... shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment" — and wise not to end there.

Thus articles The only "shock" is stating the proposition now, before it's necessary to make the argument in a legal context.

that is all articles The only "shock" is stating the proposition now, before it's necessary to make the argument in a legal context. This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.

You now read the article The only "shock" is stating the proposition now, before it's necessary to make the argument in a legal context. with the link address https://welcometoamerican.blogspot.com/2018/06/the-only-shock-is-stating-proposition.html

Tweet

Subscribe to receive free email updates: