• 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!

Gov. Gavin Newsom vs. California Law

Harshaw

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,845
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
CA Gov. Gavin Newsom has announced a "moratorium" on the death penalty in CA.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom announces moratorium on death penalty, halting more than 700 executions - ABC News


California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced a moratorium on the death penalty Wednesday, halting more than 700 executions in the state.

The executive order grants a reprieve to 737 inmates on the country's largest death row and halts the use of the death penalty in the state, according to the governor's office.

"I do not believe that a civilized society can claim to be a leader in the world as long as its government continues to sanction the premeditated and discriminatory execution of its people," Newsom said in prepared remarks on Wednesday. "In short, the death penalty is inconsistent with our bedrock values and strikes at the very heart of what it means to be a Californian."
Click to expand...

I generally oppose the death penalty myself (I'm squishy on it when it comes to really, really heinous crimes). But the law is what it is in California, and the death penalty has been reaffirmed numerous times, even recently, by the voters of California.

The governor does not have the power to simply decide not to enforce the law as written. He does have the pardon power, but that's not a blanket license to nullify state sentencing law; it's a case-by-case power meant to alleviate injustice on an individual basis. This is also not a case of "prosecutorial discretion"; the prosecution is already done.

The governor doesn't get to decide what California law is or should be. That's up to the state legislature and the people of California.

This is a blatant unconstitutional abuse of power.
 
Harshaw said:
CA Gov. Gavin Newsom has announced a "moratorium" on the death penalty in CA.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom announces moratorium on death penalty, halting more than 700 executions - ABC News




I generally oppose the death penalty myself (I'm squishy on it when it comes to really, really heinous crimes). But the law is what it is in California, and the death penalty has been reaffirmed numerous times, even recently, by the voters of California.

The governor does not have the power to simply decide not to enforce the law as written. He does have the pardon power, but that's not a blanket license to nullify state sentencing law; it's a case-by-case power meant to alleviate injustice on an individual basis. This is also not a case of "prosecutorial discretion"; the prosecution is already done.

The governor doesn't get to decide what California law is or should be. That's up to the state legislature and the people of California.

This is a blatant unconstitutional abuse of power.
Click to expand...

Calling a moratorium on executions does not overturn the law, it simply puts it on pause, not the first time a Governor has done this.
For the record I believe in the death penalty so long as it is fairly applied and the convict had good quality legal support.
 
Casper said:
Calling a moratorium on executions does not overturn the law, it simply puts it on pause, not the first time a Governor has done this.
Click to expand...

What's another case? (Not that multiple instances of abuse justify a new abuse.)

The governor has no power to put the law "on pause." The California constitution says (similarly to most state constitutions and the US Constitution):

The Governor shall see that the law is faithfully executed.
Click to expand...

He's required to enforce the law, not choose what he wants to enforce and what he doesn't.

What else do you think it would be OK for him to "put on pause"? "Pause" welfare payments? "Pause" all law enforcement? "Pause" tax collection?
 
Harshaw said:
This is a blatant unconstitutional abuse of power.
Click to expand...

Newsom is the governor of California. He can stay any execution he wants. That is well within is powers under the CA constitution. I think you'll also find that the majority of the people of the state of California do in fact support is the decision.
 
Harshaw said:
CA Gov. Gavin Newsom has announced a "moratorium" on the death penalty in CA.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom announces moratorium on death penalty, halting more than 700 executions - ABC News




I generally oppose the death penalty myself (I'm squishy on it when it comes to really, really heinous crimes). But the law is what it is in California, and the death penalty has been reaffirmed numerous times, even recently, by the voters of California.

The governor does not have the power to simply decide not to enforce the law as written. He does have the pardon power, but that's not a blanket license to nullify state sentencing law; it's a case-by-case power meant to alleviate injustice on an individual basis. This is also not a case of "prosecutorial discretion"; the prosecution is already done.

The governor doesn't get to decide what California law is or should be. That's up to the state legislature and the people of California.

This is a blatant unconstitutional abuse of power.
Click to expand...

I agree.
He thinks he's the King of CA. Btw, I am anti-capital punishment as well, but that's a moot point. The voters decided 3 years ago to KEEP the death penalty in effect...The law is the law and the only way it should be overturned is to put it back on the ballot, but we do not need to do that! We already voted!

Just last week a child murderer from my area has his death sentence upheld by the CA. supreme court. Does this mean Newsom's power usurps the CA. SC?
Calif. Supreme Court Upholds Death Penalty Conviction Upheld for Van Dam Murderer
 
MrWonka said:
Newsom is the governor of California. He can stay any execution he wants. That is well within is powers under the CA constitution. I think you'll also find that the majority of the people of the state of California do in fact support is the decision.
Click to expand...

That's a lie.
 
MrWonka said:
Newsom is the governor of California. He can stay any execution he wants. That is well within is powers under the CA constitution. I think you'll also find that the majority of the people of the state of California do in fact support is the decision.
Click to expand...

Generally, he as the power to grant clemency of individual case, not do a wholesale invalidation California law.

California impeached Grey Davis for granting drivers licenses to illegals, and pay for play accusations and general pandering for votes. I expect a similar move against Newsom, but most of the law and order Californian's have moved, and the rest don't give a crap anymore.

The next step is to put them into the general population when they can carry out hits.

These guys are horrible people and should be put to death. A bullet in the brain is too good for them.

Typical liberals. They have no respect for the will of the voters. They just plow ahead with their agenda.

He is only doing it to raise his profile since he wants to run for president, and the left doesn't have the stomach to kill those who kill them.
 
chuckiechan said:
Generally, he as the power to grant clemency of individual case, not do a wholesale invalidation California law.
Click to expand...

They are identical. If he can stay the execution of every person on death row individually then he can have a standing policy of staying each and every one of them. There's probably one or two people being executed per year anyway. He's just declaring in advance that he's going to do that, and he has every right to.
 
I'm not sure how the governor thinks he can suspend a law, even one rarely used. I was under the impression that no one had been executed in California for years anyway, so I looked it up. Looks like I was wrong:

[h=1]Here are the 13 men executed by California since 1978[/h]
By Evan Wagstaff
July 16, 2014, 2 p.m.
More than 850 people have been sentenced to death in California since 1978, when the state reinstated capital punishment, but only 13 had been executed.
Here's a look at those men and the crimes for which they were put to death:
Click to expand...


except that 13 out of 850 is hardly worth the cost and effort.
 
Dittohead not! said:
I'm not sure how the governor thinks he can suspend a law, even one rarely used. I was under the impression that no one had been executed in California for years anyway, so I looked it up. Looks like I was wrong:

[h=1]Here are the 13 men executed by California since 1978[/h]


except that 13 out of 850 is hardly worth the cost and effort.
Click to expand...

You have to understand that this is a game where everyone makes money. An anti death lawyer can have three or four death row clients, and he will be working full time on the states dime forever.

They are certainly genuinely against the death penalty, and the judges are happy to play the game too, because at the end of the day judges are lawyers in funny clothes and go to the same parties, and all want to be appointed to higher judicial roles. No one really gives a damn about the victims, the voters, or the criminals. It's all about politics and making it become nearly impossible to execute a murderer because they are right and you are wrong.

The total on death row is misleading. The number that should be on death row is closer to 2000, based on how the sentence is arrived as and how appeals are handled. Many are there for killing someone in prison. In fact, if murder one were enforced more tightly, it's would be 10,000. Then what?
 
Casper said:
Calling a moratorium on executions does not overturn the law, it simply puts it on pause, not the first time a Governor has done this.
For the record I believe in the death penalty so long as it is fairly applied and the convict had good quality legal support.
Click to expand...

MrWonka said:
Newsom is the governor of California. He can stay any execution he wants. That is well within is powers under the CA constitution. I think you'll also find that the majority of the people of the state of California do in fact support is the decision.
Click to expand...

And by the way, this is the governor's clemency power by the California constitution:

(a) Subject to application procedures provided by statute, the Governor, on conditions the Governor deems proper, may grant a reprieve, pardon, and commutation, after sentence, except in case of impeachment. The Governor shall report to the Legislature each reprieve, pardon, and commutation granted, stating the pertinent facts and the reasons for granting it. The Governor may not grant a pardon or commutation to a person twice convicted of a felony except on recommendation of the Supreme Court, 4 judges concurring.
Click to expand...

It is FAR from absolute, is limited by statute, and is to be done case-by-case, by application:

https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Application_for_Executive_Clemency.pdf

There is no blanket authority for the governor to do this.
 
Last edited:
MrWonka said:
They are identical. If he can stay the execution of every person on death row individually then he can have a standing policy of staying each and every one of them. There's probably one or two people being executed per year anyway. He's just declaring in advance that he's going to do that, and he has every right to.
Click to expand...

CA hasn't managed to execute anyone since 2006.

I agree Newsom has this power.

Myself, I'd change things around so that the death penalty was carried out expeditiously, within a year or so of the sentence. Time for an appeal or two, and then they get on with it. It would encourage the judges/juries involved consider their decisions especially carefully.

While they may appear a bit pro-execution, I believe it would in fact lead to fewer death penalty convictions overall.
 
WillyPete said:
If he can do them individually, he can do them en masse. Gotta pick your battles.
Click to expand...

No, he can't, because each has to be applied for individually.
 
Harshaw said:
No, he can't, because each has to be applied for individually.
Click to expand...

48c.jpg

He already did, and there's no combination of powers in CA that's going to reverse him. You've already put more energy into this than they will.

I'll agree it's a shame and go on about my business. You can make a day of it, if you like.
 
Harshaw said:
And by the way, this is the governor's clemency power by the California constitution:

is to be done case-by-case, by application
Click to expand...

Which means he can declare publicly that he will do it from now on, and then in the future when there is an individual case declare them officially. Why is this so complicated for you?
 
Harshaw said:
No, he can't, because each has to be applied for individually.
Click to expand...

HAHAHA!!! Dude! He can declare that when they come up he will grant them individually. That's all he's saying.
 
WillyPete said:
View attachment 67252482

He already did, and there's no combination of powers in CA that's going to reverse him. You've already put more energy into this than they will.
Click to expand...

So, you're arguing that he has the power not because he's granted that power by the constitution, but because he's done it and (in your estimation) will probably get away with it?

That kinda makes him a warlord. That's OK with you?
 
MrWonka said:
HAHAHA!!! Dude! He can declare that when they come up he will grant them individually. That's all he's saying.
Click to expand...

No, that's not what he's saying. If you have to make things up, you must know you're not correct.
 
MrWonka said:
Which means he can declare publicly that he will do it from now on, and then in the future when there is an individual case declare them officially. Why is this so complicated for you?
Click to expand...

That's not what he said. Why are you repeatedly lying?
 
Harshaw said:
So, you're arguing that he has the power not because he's granted that power by the constitution, but because he's done it and (in your estimation) will probably get away with it?

That kinda makes him a warlord. That's OK with you?
Click to expand...

I'm saying you're hanging on a technical argument that no one is listening to. Shout it to the heavens. I hope it brings you great joy, but it won't impact these executions. Yes, that's in my estimation.

The very most your position will accomplish is that Newsom will have to file a bunch of paperwork, which he very likely had already planned to do. He has a large staff perfectly capable of whipping up a bunch of applications on the behalf of these prisoners.

If you feel stomping your feet over that is a good use of your time, then get to stompin'. I'm all done.
 
WillyPete said:
I'm saying you're hanging on a technical argument that no one is listening to.
Click to expand...

It's a clear constitutional issue, by plain language. That's not a "technical argument." It's bedrock California law, and bedrock constitutional, rule-of-law, and separation-of-powers principle.

It's so fundamental that if it's considered frivolous, then so is constitutional government as a whole.

You don't at all know that "no one is listening" or that no one will challenge. You may not care, but that's just you.
 
Harshaw said:
It's a clear constitutional issue, by plain language. That's not a "technical argument." It's bedrock California law, and bedrock constitutional, rule-of-law, and separation-of-powers principle.

It's so fundamental that if it's considered frivolous, then so is constitutional government as a whole.

You don't at all know that "no one is listening" or that no one will challenge. You may not care, but that's just you.
Click to expand...

So dramatic!

It seems to me if the applications are processed normally, your only gripe will be will be with how he announced his policy.

The key is that he won't be permitting executions during his tenure, and that's within his powers.

How the paperwork is processed is quite uninteresting, and certainly doesn't mark the collapse of society.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom