HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: Proposed ban on Presidential pardon for own appointees
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 02:03:14 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.222537.26253@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
:In the long run, what effect will your ammendment have?  Will it not discourage
:those in the executive branch from taking action for fear of future 
:retribution?

Well *that* sounds like an excellent effect to me.

:  The founders argued in favor of the energetic executive
:and I would like for you to address this issue.

And the founders are always right?  Although I'm sure they could appreciate
the duplicity of man which doesn't changes over the ages, I doubt very much
they could have forseen the global scope of actions of your current
executive.

:Mike Best

G
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: prb@chinet.chi.il.us (Paul Botts)
Subject: Re: Proposed ban on Presidential pardon for own appointees
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 17:11:04 GMT

In article <C01v1F.C8L@demon.co.uk> gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal) writes:
>
>:  The founders argued in favor of the energetic executive
>:and I would like for you to address this issue.

COme again? Which founders are you referring to? The ones who wrote our
Constitution were very leery of a really strong executive, and took
pains to try to prevent one from developing. Indeed, throughout the
first 120 years or so of this nation's history, presidents with one
notable exception were treated and thought of very much as the mayor in
a "strong-council, weak-mayor" municipal government (see your favorite
poly sci textbook for an explanation). You might want to spend some time
with the Federalist Papers and/or the proceedings of the Constituional
Convention. The modern idea of an "Imperial Presidency" is very much a
modern idea.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.constitution:1334 alt.society.civil-liberty:7103
From: dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Proposed ban on Presidential pardon for own appointees
Date: 29 Dec 92 07:03:34 GMT
Organization: VTT

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:

  I.
  Presidential pardons do not apply to and may not be given to members of 
  the following groups for crimes which may have been committed in 
  connection with duties as employees of the government of these United 
  States:

  1. Appointees of that president to federal government office.
  2. Appointees to federal government office by any president under which
     the president intending to serve the pardon has served as
     vice-president;
  3. Any president under which the president intending to serve the pardon
     has served as vice-president.
  4. Himself or herself.

  II.
  Federal and state courts have no authority to consider the existance of
  any pardon issued in violation of Section I of this Article.

  III.
  The issuance of any pardon in violation of Section I of this Article 
  is grounds for impeachment of the president who issues such a pardon.
  This Section has no bearing upon whether any other specific offense 
  is impeachable.

  IV.
  This article shall not apply to any person who may be president or vice-
  president either on the date that the Article is submitted to the states
  for ratification or on the date upon which ratification is complete.

  V.
  [7 year restriction on ratification]


The wording is certainly open to modification and should be changed so
that it is more constitutional in form and so that there are no
unforseen loopholes.

Section IV. is in the Article, not because i don't wish the restrictions
to apply to Bill Clinton--i certainly do--but for fairness' sake.  Just
as the Presidential term limitation did not apply to HST, nor the term
limitations for presidents who ascended from the vice presidency apply
to LBJ, such a change in rules governing the presidency should not apply
to a sitting president.
-- 
doug foxvog     
dfo@tko.vtt.fi
From: v026ltr5@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Monty)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: why has statutory law been replacing common law?
Date: 1 Jan 93 16:07:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1993Jan1.082254.28870@panix.com>, lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney) writes...
>Since the Magna Carta is a British constitutional document, it has
>absolutely nothing to do with "engagements ... valid against the
>United States."  This clause obviously refers to treaties and
>contracts which were entered into under the Articles of Confederation.
>And from where did you pull in the 14th amendement?

Not entirely. The Magna Carta is part of English Common Law as well,
and as such has significance in Federal Common Law. In fact, I've
even seen it cited in Federal cases, although I can't recall which
cases they were. The 14th Amendment, under this concept, could
in fact apply the Magna Carta's common law principles to State
common law. I don't buy this argument myself, but I can see
where it came from and he certainly isn't the first to make it.

>*Erie* declared that there was no federal common law (at least as to
>diversity jurisdiction cases), and that common law suits in federal
>court were to be tried under state common law principles for the state
>in which the federal court sits.

Except, of course, where there is no state common law.

>What this has to do with the Magna Carta or the clause you cited is
>beyond me.

I think he was using those references to argue for the supremacy
of Federal Common Law. By the way, I didn't read the article,
but I saw something in a law magazine that indicated that
Erie might be overturned. Anyone know about this?

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
{                                            | Matthew P. Mason        }
{          are 'friends' electric?           | SUNY Buffalo Law School }
{                                            | v026ltr5@ubvms.bitnet   }
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: jap@cbnews.cb.att.com (james.a.parker)
Subject: Re: Proposed ban on Presidential pardon for own appointees
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 19:05:22 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.210106.11742@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>Most prosecutors have a limited budget.  And when you're accused of a
>serious crime (outside of the whole politics mess), you are entitled
>to a public attorney.  By and large, they're often overworked and
>underpaid.  OTOH, by and large, the prosecutors are too.

1) Prosecutors may have a limited budget, but that budget is typically large
   compared to that of an average citizen -- especially since they typically
   can draw resources for a case at no additional cost that private citizens
   cannot (e.g., getting the police to do legwork, access to the complete
   records of grand jury testimony).  Finally, these budgets are flexible;
   in most cases the very threat of an all out prosecution induces the
   victim to accept a plea bargain (note: the vast majority of criminal cases
   to not go to trial).

2) Many of the "crimes" involved are manipulated into civil matters in which
   attorneys are not provided.  This does not involve prison, admittedly, but
   it allows people to be punished via a large resource drain.

3) Civil forfeiture is used very frequently, and its preemptive nature removes
   the ability of citizens to pay for a defense.  

4) Public attorneys are far more overworked than prosecutors.  It is extremely
   rare to get a public attorney willing to mount a court defense, instead
   focusing on getting a plea bargain (innocence is not an issue).

                                   James Parker
                                   jap@cb1focus.att.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.constitution:1351 alt.society.civil-liberty:7148
From: sean@cobra.dra.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: Proposed ban on Presidential pardon for own appointees
Date: 29 Dec 92 22:20:33 CST
Organization: Data Research Associates, Inc.

Rather than eliminating the Pardon power, make it subject to the "Advice and
Consent of the Senate," or subject to override by 2/3rds of both houses of
Congress.  I put the Pardon in the same catagory as other checks & balances
such as the Veto.  IMHO it would be better to try to find a method to
balance its use than trying to eliminate it completely.

It is occasionally useful to have the pardon, and very few pardons generate
much opposition.
-- 
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Domain: sean@sdg.dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100
Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.constitution:1348 alt.society.civil-liberty:7138
From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle)
Subject: Re: Proposed ban on Presidential pardon for own appointees
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 17:27:56 GMT

pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich) writes:
>I have a foolishly optimistic question here -- if someone has been
>pardoned for a crime, even prospectively like Weinberger, does this
>mean that they lose their 5th-Amendment protections and can be
>compelled to testify about others involved in the crime, under
>penalty of being held indefinitely on contempt-of-court charges? If
>they lie, does the pardon cover the perjury as well?

       That's right.  Now Congress can call them in, ask questions about
Bush, and they can't plead the Fifth Amendment, because they themselves
aren't at risk.  And that's exactly what some members of Congress are 
preparing to do.

					John Nagle
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: Proposed ban on Presidential pardon for own appointees
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 21:01:06 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.173339.2734@cbnews.cb.att.com>
jap@cbnews.cb.att.com (james.a.parker) writes:
>In article <1992Dec31.035730.13699@midway.uchicago.edu>
>eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>>Unfortunately, when one is being Walshed (investigated by Mr Walsh,
>>that is), going through the judicial process and paying for one's own
>>lawyer against a prosecutor with an infinite budget is a chunk of the
>>punishment itself.

>Of course this happens to thousands of private citizens every year without one
>peep from Mr. Bush.  It wouldn't be so bad if Bush were to pardon those folks
>as well.

Most prosecutors have a limited budget.  And when you're accused of a
serious crime (outside of the whole politics mess), you are entitled
to a public attorney.  By and large, they're often overworked and
underpaid.  OTOH, by and large, the prosecutors are too.

A Walshing is different because the prosecution has everything it
wants -- Mr Walsh has spent $16.5 million in salaries and $8 million
for "rent, communications and equipment" (source: Jan. 1993 Reader's
Digest), and the poor defendant is left to his own resources.

I'm not suggesting that this is the only abuse, just a damned major one.

-- 
E. Elizabeth Bartley           |        "This is a world of compensation; and
he who would be no slave must consent to have no slave.  Those who deny freedom
to others deserve it not for themselves, and, under a just God, cannot long
retain it."    - Abraham Lincoln
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: komarimf@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Mark 'Henry' Komarinski)
Subject: Re: Proposed ban on Presidential pardon for own appointees
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 15:58:40 GMT

dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) writes:


>  III.
>  The issuance of any pardon in violation of Section I of this Article 
>  is grounds for impeachment of the president who issues such a pardon.
>  This Section has no bearing upon whether any other specific offense 
>  is impeachable.

	Sounds good, except for the above section.  Why have a President 
impeached for trying to pardon someone who can't be pardoned? The President
himself(herself) did nothing wrong.  Just say that Congress (or the courts) 
will not accept pardons for those groups of people and leave it at that.

-Mark

--
- Mark Komarinski - komarimf@craft.camp.clarkson.edu
[MIME mail welcome]
Smile.  It makes people wonder what you're up to.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: kaskubar@kirby.mayo.edu (Bruce Kaskubar)
Subject: House Voting Rights
Organization: Mayo Foundation, Rochester MN. Campus
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 00:33:47 GMT

According to George Wills' December 17 column, the House Democratic  
caucus (Tom Foley et al.) is attempting to give voting rights to  
the five delegates from American Samoa, Guam, the District of  
Columbia, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico.  (OK, only when the  
House is acting as a Committee of the Whole but real work gets done  
then.)  Jesse Jackson and his four counterparts (all Democrats)  
will now join the fray with all the representatives of us taxpaying  
types.  American Samoa's representation will be about 17 times that  
of Montana, per capita.  If taxation without representation is  
tyranny, what's representation without taxes and statehood?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dave Eisen)
Subject: Re: So what's a religion ?
Organization: Sequoia Peripherals, Inc.
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 07:29:27 GMT

Pete Zakel said:
>>Someone else's drug use or nonuse is NOYFB unless and until that drug use or
>>nonuse directly impacts you.

John Hagler replied:
>Well I guess it is my business then because I was nearly knowcked off the 
>top of a building when I was in construction by a guy operating a concrete pump
>while he was loaded....I wish he had had to take a drug test before he came 
>to work..and so does the guy who had his lip splitopen by that fool.

The pump operator's drug use is *still* NOYFB.

You are not concerned here with whether or not the pump operator
took drugs in his spare time, you are concerned with whether or
not he is under the influence while at work. So why test whether
or not he has residue of some illegal drug somewhere in his 
blood stream? Why do you care about that?

I couldn't care less whether someone I deal with takes drugs. That
is truly none of my business. I do care, and very much so, whether
or not the bus driver or surgeon or pump operator is impaired while
doing his job. So let's test for that, a simple test of motor skills
and alertness should do the trick.

Test him for the problem you care about not one that has no direct
affect on you at all. This also has the nice bonus that it doesn't
involve taking someone's bodily fluids and performing lab tests on
them that are not really all that accurate. Lab tests that can equally
well be used to find out all kinds of other information about the
employee. 

Fortunately, the world is moving in this direction in spite of the
lack of interest government and private industry have in treating
employees with some level of respect. Too many companies are finding
out that false positives cost them too much to make piss tests
economically feasible. And impairment tests are getting to be much
easier to administer and much more reliable and a whole lot cheaper
than piss tests are.

We civil libertarians are lucky that civil liberties happen to be
cost effective in this case. After 12 years of ReaganBush encroaching
on civil liberties, I'll take a victory any way I can get one.



-- 
Dave Eisen                               Sequoia Peripherals: (415) 967-5644
dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU              Home:                (415) 321-5154
       There's something in my library to offend everybody. 
          --- Washington Coalition Against Censorship
Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.constitution:1347 alt.society.civil-liberty:7137
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 06:24:01 GMT
Organization: VTT

In article <1992Dec29.144325.21842@panix.com> pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich) 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:

>I have a foolishly optimistic question here -- if someone has been
>pardoned for a crime, even prospectively like Weinberger, does this
>mean that they lose their 5th-Amendment protections and can be
>compelled to testify about others involved in the crime, under
>penalty of being held indefinitely on contempt-of-court charges? 

The 5th Amendment protects people from being forced to testify against
themselves.  If they are immune from proscecution they are not on trial
nor can they be tried for activities which have been pardoned.
Therefore they have no 5th Amendment rights on the matter and may be
forced to testify just as anyone else is.

>If they lie, does the pardon cover the perjury as well?

So far, pardons have only been retroactive.  [Need we include in the
Amendment a requirement that pardons be only for past deeds?]  Any perjury 
committed after the pardon is a separate crime and is naturally judiciable.  
A pardon may certainly cover perjury; weren't the basic charges against
Weinburger perjury?

-- 
doug foxvog     
dfo@tko.vtt.fi   
Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.constitution:1335 alt.society.civil-liberty:7105
From: weverka@csn.org (Robert T. Weverka)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: Proposed ban on Presidential pardon for own appointees
Date: 29 Dec 92 10:16:46 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder


An alternate might be to ban blanket pardons of the unconvicted.
Let them go through the judicial process, so that we know what
they are guilty ( and incocent) of before a pardon is allowed.

That way
* we know when they have been found innocent.
* we know what exactly the president is pardoning them for when they
  are found guilty (we know what the president finds pardonable)
* we don't have the kind of blanket pardons that release the criminal
  from anything he might have done (including murder) (read Nixons pardon).

-Ted
From: v026ltr5@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Monty)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: why has statutory law been replacing common law?
Date: 1 Jan 93 16:00:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <RJC.92Dec31131132@devo.unify.com>, rjc@devo.unify.com
(Ronald Cole) writes...
>Not being an attorney, I can see no benefit in replacing common law with
>statutory law.

For many people, the reason is political. The power to make laws is something
we would rather see reserved for the legislature, not judges.

>Article VI, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution reads:
>   "All ... engagements entered into, before the adoption of this
>   Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under
>   this Constitution, as under the Confederation."
>Doesn't this mean that the Magna Carta still has force of law through
>the 14th Amendment?

Good question. The Magna Carta certainly has effect in common law,
but only when it does not conflict with the Constitution. This is
another good reason for statutory laws - laws can hardly be normative
if nobody knows what they are, and how many people have actually
read the Magna Carta, for instance?

>If yes, then does this have something to do with Erie Railroad Co. v.
>Tompkins, 304 US 54 overturning Swift v. Tyson (1-8 Pet 1-8 (1842)?

Not exactly, but it does affect the question of Federal Common Law.
Erie held that Federal courts, when deciding a question of state
law must interpret the law as the state would, not as they would
under Federal Common Law. Most interesting is the application of
this rule in Louisiana, which is NOT a common law state. All law
in Louisiana is statutory, which, as far as I'm concerned is the
only positive thing that can be said for the entire state. :)

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
{                                            | Matthew P. Mason        }
{          are 'friends' electric?           | SUNY Buffalo Law School }
{                                            | v026ltr5@ubvms.bitnet   }
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.constitution:1349 alt.society.civil-liberty:7139
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: Proposed ban on Presidential pardon for own appointees
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 22:14:45 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.182632.15252@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
:I would not argue with you on the surface of your statement and due to it's
:superficiality it's difficult to go farther.  I do, however, believe that
:this investigation is an attempt to criminalize what was, inarguably, bad 
:policy and is therefore misguided.

No, it wasn't 'bad policy'.  It was totalitarian tyranical government by
one man (and his henchmen) without any regard to the democratic process
and congress.  The whole question here is not whether the policy was good
or bad - hell, if it had been public, who knows, maybe congress would have
approved it - but whether the president is allowed to bypass the whole
of the political process and make and enforce personal decisions in secret.

:The long term effect on the Presidency
:could very well be such that it curtails the ability of the executive branch
:to take action.  I, like the founders, believe that a weak government is a
:greater threat to liberty than a tyrant and that to vitiate the foreign policy
:perogatives of the executive branch is to weaken it.

If you really believe that, we've nothing more to discuss.  If you're happy
to hand over democracy to a tyrant, as you seem to have done, you'll get
the government you deserve.

G
From: stecher@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (Jack Stecher)
Subject: No, it wasn't
Organization: Department of Economics, Univ of Minn
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 21:26:11 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.111938.13398@mr.med.ge.com> gorney@picard.med.ge.com (Felix Gorney Mfg 4-6983) writes:
>
>I beleive it was Madison, who was against the idea of a bill of rights. 

No, it was Washington.  Madison believed that adding a bill of rights
would take care of the anti-federalists' objections, and added the 9th
and 10th to address Washington's.

I believe that Madison was sincere in thinking a bill of rights would
limit the authority of the federal government.  After all, he served
as Jefferson's Secretary of State, then was elected President on the
Democratic-Republican ticket.

--Jack Stecher
stecher@atlas.socsci.umn.edu
--
In their ideological struggle against plutocracy and capitalism, the Axis
Powers had, to a certain extent, the same objectives as the Russian regime.
		--Mussolini, German memo of talk to Goering, 16 April 1939
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton