From: dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: Proposed ban on Presidential pardon for own appointees
Date: 30 Dec 92 06:43:44 GMT
Organization: VTT

In article <1992Dec29.222537.26253@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>In article <1992Dec29.070334.24585@ousrvr.oulu.fi> dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) writes:
>>As Lawrence Walsh has stated, the pardon by Bush of Caspar Weinberger
>>shows terrible disrespect for the principle that ours is a government
>>of law.  The idea that a President can have his/her [<= someday?]
>>underlings violate the laws and then pardon them when leaving office so
>>that they serve little or no time is reprehensible.  Something should
>>be done to close this loophole.  I suggest a constitutional amendment
>>along the following lines:

>While you may address this issue in general as you may wish.  The action
>by Bush to pardon these underlings is by no means universally considered
>as reprehensible.  In fact, after watching Walsh after the pardons, Walsh
>showed himself to be the very likeness of a persecutor that those who
>decried MacCarthy's rule so oft lament when speaking of Republicans.

This is getting out of the province of this news group, but i would be
interested to know where this analogy comes from.  McCarthy made wild
claims without being specific (e.g. "I have in my hand a list of [N]
names...") and also persecuted people for their membership in various
organizations.  Walsh is going after people who violated specific laws
prohibiting certain actions (including lying under oath).

>Also, consider the evidence - it seems true that Poindexter and North were
>guilty of covering up evidence but Casper Weinberger is on record as being
>against this policy.  What we have here is Walsh persecuting these people
>and is attempting to do so by criminalizing what was, in effect, bad policy.

Again, not the subject of this group, but i will respond.

CW was being tried for lying to Congress.  He certainly appears to have
strongly opposed the illegal actions, but he still has no right to lie
about those actions to protect his boss.

Walsh is proscecuting, not "persecuting".  Congress criminalized the
activities which did also happen to be bad policy.  Walsh is not doing
the criminalizing, he has been trying to root out the criminals.

>In the long run, what effect will your ammendment have?  

It will help ensure that a president will obey the law and it will
discourage presidential assistants from feeling that they can violate
the law with impunity.

>Will it not discourage
>those in the executive branch from taking action for fear of future 
>retribution?  The founders argued in favor of the energetic executive
>and I would like for you to address this issue.

Hopefully it will discourage those in the executive branch from taking a
certain class of action:  illegal action.  

The founders argued in favor of the energetic executive, but one that
was bound by law.  That is the point of the system of checks and
balances which was set up.  This amendment is intended to close a
loophole in those checks and balances which has only recently become
widely apparant:  that a president may have his/her subordinates engage in
illegal activities upon his/her own behalf and then pardon them for the
offenses when leaving office.  In this case there is no recourse against
either the President or the criminals.

>Mike Best


-- 
doug foxvog     
dfo@tko.vtt.fi   
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.society.civil-liberty