• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New York seeks authority to prosecute despite presidential pardons

JANFU said:
So you admit you were wrong.
Click to expand...

I'm not wrong. Your own source proves I'm not wrong.

New York's new law won't survive Supreme Court review, if they try someone for the same offense he has already been convicted of.
 
apdst said:
I'm not wrong. Your own source proves I'm not wrong.

New York's new law won't survive Supreme Court review, if they try someone for the same offense he has already been convicted of.
Click to expand...

Only applies to those charged after the law is passed.

You sound terribly upset.

If any members of Trumps family are charged & convicted, you can always visit them and tell them, nothing but a witch hunt, deep State, the Democrats, Obama & Hillary were behind it.

Based upon what you have posted, I would not offer them any legal advice, they only hire the best.
 
JANFU said:
Only applies to those charged after the law is passed.

You sound terribly upset.

If any members of Trumps family are charged & convicted, you can always visit them and tell them, nothing but a witch hunt, deep State, the Democrats, Obama & Hillary were behind it.

Based upon what you have posted, I would not offer them any legal advice, they only hire the best.
Click to expand...

Your making it personal proves you know I'm right. It's all you have left.

And yes, I get upset when someone attempts to blatantly violate The Constitution. Everyone should.
 
Kreton said:
Pardons are always unjust. We have a judicial system for a reason. If you are found guilty in court you should not get off because a president likes you.
Click to expand...

I'm sure it's only a problem now because there's a Republican president.
 
Removable Mind said:
Presidential pardons only apply to those convicted of federal crimes.

Only a governor can pardon persons convicted of state crimes.
Click to expand...

True. That said, NY has a law on the books preventing charging someone who was charged and convicted of the same Federal charge.
 
apdst said:
Your making it personal proves you know I'm right. It's all you have left.

And yes, I get upset when someone attempts to blatantly violate The Constitution. Everyone should.
Click to expand...
I did not make it personal.
States rights. Where is the Constitutional violation? Nothing there. Got that last line from Trump and his Spanksters
 
ajn678 said:
Democrats are excusing throwing away the rules of our nation for any attempt to damage Trump and take him down, even if it turns out nothing illegal happened. They are completely losing their minds.
Click to expand...


No one is interested in 'taking him down' if he didn't do anything illegal. But, if he is a threat to national security, derelict in this duty to uphold the constitution, things of this nature, all bets are off.

If the president is a crook, of corrupt intent ( his pardons could have a conflict of interest dynamic. Pardoning Cohen, his lawyer, for example ) and a threat to national security, he must be removed, it's really quite simple.
 
JANFU said:
True. That said, NY has a law on the books preventing charging someone who was charged and convicted of the same Federal charge.
Click to expand...

That’s a different animule. Is trying and convicting someone for a federal crime become double jeopardy if the same crime is also a state crime and the state pursues a conviction say after the person serves their federal sentence?
 
The Mark said:
Not sure, but can they preemptively pardon someone for something they haven't yet been convicted of?

I recall this question occurring in recent months, in regard to an actual or potential pardon from Trump.
Click to expand...


Ford pardoned Nixon who wasn't indicted.
 
JANFU said:
I did not make it personal.
States rights. Where is the Constitutional violation? Nothing there. Got that last line from Trump and his Spanksters
Click to expand...

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It over-rules any state law.

I love how Libbos are such big fans of states rights. :lamo
 
Kreton said:
I have no interest in debate with you. I don't understand your infatuation with me. You can keep trying but I will not take your bait. Move along please.
Click to expand...

Report it if you don't like it.
 
Removable Mind said:
That’s a different animule. Is trying and convicting someone for a federal crime become double jeopardy if the same crime is also a state crime and the state pursues a conviction say after the person serves their federal sentence?
Click to expand...

Not that I know of.
From an earlier post
https://legaldictionary.net/double-jeopardy/

Dual Sovereignty Doctrine

Strictly speaking, the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment only protects defendants against being prosecuted twice by the same government. This means that if a state prosecutes someone for a specific crime that violates statutes on both the state and federal levels, the defendant may still be subject to prosecution by the federal government for the exact same crime. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the dual sovereignty doctrine, in confirming that the government of the United States is a separate sovereign from any state government.

For example, a defendant may be tried by the state for murder, may be tried again by the federal government for a federal offense related to the same act, such as kidnapping or a civil rights violation. As a result of the 1992 Los Angeles race riots related to the beating of Rodney King, the officers were acquitted in their trial by the state of California. The federal government retried the officers for the violation of King’s civil rights. The double jeopardy clause did not apply, as the two separate governments may prosecute an individual for the same crime.
Click to expand...


SCOTUS Link
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/briefs/2018/01/16/17-646_gamble_opp.pdf
Case in point
Both State and Federal charges.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/10/us/dylann-roof-guilty-plea-state-trial/index.html
Charleston, South Carolina (CNN)Dylann Roof, who shot to death nine people in a historically black church in Charleston, South Carolina, pleaded guilty Monday afternoon to all state charges in the killings.
Roof was sentenced to death by a federal jury back in January for the June 2015 massacre at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church.

The deal reached in the Charleston County Courthouse clears the way for his federal imprisonment, on death row, to begin.
Click to expand...
 
apdst said:
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It over-rules any state law.

I love how Libbos are such big fans of states rights. :lamo
Click to expand...

Not always, States rights. Your Constitution.
Clearly upset you a Foreigner schooled you on the Constitution?
 
JANFU said:
Not always, States rights. Your Constitution.
Clearly upset you a Foreigner schooled you on the Constitution?
Click to expand...

You proved yourself wrong! :lamo
 
I have to admit, I was a bit surprised that double jeopardy protections only apply to a specific jurisdiction. Thus, it seems likely that this law would survive a Constitutional challenge, assuming it's written properly.

It's definitely politically motivated, but I have a hard time getting upset about it, given that there are basically no other checks on the pardon power of the President.
 
Visbek said:
I have to admit, I was a bit surprised that double jeopardy protections only apply to a specific jurisdiction. Thus, it seems likely that this law would survive a Constitutional challenge, assuming it's written properly.

It's definitely politically motivated, but I have a hard time getting upset about it, given that there are basically no other checks on the pardon power of the President.
Click to expand...

This president, you mean? The law wil be changed back if a Democrat president is elected
 
apdst said:
The state and Federal charges on Roof are seperate offenses. Did you even look at the list of charges?
Click to expand...

Yes I am aware, and what is new about that. Both laid DP charges.
 
This does away with the possibility of a president engaging in (i.e.) racketeering and then pardoning his accomplices ... thus protecting a continuing criminal enterprise.

This is a proactive move on the part of the NY AG probably due to Trumps predilection for bending/abusing presidential powers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom