• 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!

A Constitutional loophole.

Torus34

Torus34

DP Veteran
Joined
May 5, 2019
Messages
9,708
Reaction score
4,682
Location
Staten Island, NY USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
A while back, President of the United States of America gave the talking heads and the news media something to fill time and space. He stated that he could pardon himself.

In fact, the Constitution is entirely silent with regard to the presidential pardon except for establishing it. The sole remedy for the misuse of the pardon is impeachment.

So ... If we have a would-be dictator in the White House and his/her party is willing to go along and holds a majority of the seats in the Senate, there is no remedy.

The founders seem, even given their mistrust of democracy, to have let one slip by here.
 
The Presidential pardon was placed in the Constitution to proved a check and balance on the Judicial system. Can the President pardon himself, I have to say no he can not, because then he would be acting as his own judge, thereby creating a conflict of interest. Even if he tried to do this I think that impeachment articles would be fast coming.
 
Torus34 said:
A while back, President of the United States of America gave the talking heads and the news media something to fill time and space. He stated that he could pardon himself.

In fact, the Constitution is entirely silent with regard to the presidential pardon except for establishing it. The sole remedy for the misuse of the pardon is impeachment.

So ... If we have a would-be dictator in the White House and his/her party is willing to go along and holds a majority of the seats in the Senate, there is no remedy.

The founders seem, even given their mistrust of democracy, to have let one slip by here.
Click to expand...

Sure there's a remedy. There's an election every four years.
 
Harshaw said:
Sure there's a remedy. There's an election every four years.
Click to expand...

You're intentionally being a smart ass. If on the first day of a new presidential term a president decides to completely ignore the law and the Constitution and his party blocks any attempt to impeach him, there absolutely is no remedy during those 4 years.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
You're intentionally being a smart ass.
Click to expand...

No, I'm quite literally pointing out what the mechanism is, something anybody who's spent any time studying the Constitution knows, because it's just about the first thing you learn.

That you don't think the remedy is quick enough doesn't mean it's not the remedy, and it doesn't mean I'm being a smartass. The entire reason there are set terms in the first place is to give the opportunity to vote someone out periodically if people don't like what they're doing with the office.

There are also Congressional elections every two years, and an opportunity to remake the Senate.

Your personal impatience is really neither here nor there.
 
Harshaw said:
No, I'm quite literally pointing out what the mechanism is, something anybody who's spent any time studying the Constitution knows, because it's just about the first thing you learn.
..

Your personal impatience is really neither here nor there.
Click to expand...

I stopped reading after the first sentence because you did it again. You know the OP didn't mean that nothing could be done for all of eternity, until the end of time, when the last star burns out. He obviously meant during a presidential term and you know that, you're just trying to make dumbass arguments to distract from the OP's topic.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
You're intentionally being a smart ass. If on the first day of a new presidential term a president decides to completely ignore the law and the Constitution and his party blocks any attempt to impeach him, there absolutely is no remedy during those 4 years.
Click to expand...

If that's true, then we have given the executive branch too much power, and it's time to go back to the balance of powers outlined in the Constitution.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I stopped reading after the first sentence because you did it again. You know the OP didn't mean that nothing could be done for all of eternity, until the end of time, when the last star burns out. He obviously meant during a presidential term and you know that
Click to expand...

No, I don't know that at all, and neither do you.


you're just trying to make dumbass arguments to distract from the OP's topic.
Click to expand...

:roll: I see the constant rage still seethes through you.
 
Dittohead not! said:
If that's true, then we have given the executive branch too much power, and it's time to go back to the balance of powers outlined in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Yeah. But no one wants to hear about that when their own party holds the White House, or even seriously think about it when the other party does, because it'll strip their next President from doing what they want.
 
Harshaw said:
No, I don't know that at all, and neither do you.
:roll: I see the constant rage still seethes through you.
Click to expand...

Ok, let's go with your argument that he literally meant until the end of time. So the president says he doesn't think the last election was legitimate and tells his government to keep operating while he "investigates". This is illegal and unconstitutional. If his own party won't impeach him, who's going to stop him? Be specific. Your buds with your rifles right?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Ok, let's go with your argument that he literally meant until the end of time. So the president says he doesn't think the last election was legitimate and tells his government to keep operating while he "investigates". This is illegal and unconstitutional. If his own party won't impeach him, who's going to stop him? Be specific. Your buds with your rifles right?
Click to expand...

Then we've moved outside the realm of the Constitution, into something different, because the Constitution does not allow that. This topic is about what remedies the Constitution provides within itself.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Ok, let's go with your argument that he literally meant until the end of time. So the president says he doesn't think the last election was legitimate and tells his government to keep operating while he "investigates". This is illegal and unconstitutional. If his own party won't impeach him, who's going to stop him? Be specific. Your buds with your rifles right?
Click to expand...

The powers of the President are spelled out in Article II of the Constitution, any other powers the Congress has given the President can be taken away by Congress. The way our government is structured there is no way for a POTUS to take absolute power.
 
Back a few posts, someone noted that a President can be voted out of office. That's true. That doesn't mean that a majority of the voters can accomplish this, however. The President of the United States of America is selected not by a majority of the voters but by the Electoral College. That body is selected by each State. The states themselves have voting districts which are legally gerrymandered for political reasons. The members of the Electoral College are under no Constitutional restriction to mirror the will of the voters.

So ... a takeover by a political party ...
 
Dittohead not! said:
If that's true, then we have given the executive branch too much power, and it's time to go back to the balance of powers outlined in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

too bad the Supreme Court was FDR's bitch in the 30s.
 
Harshaw said:
Then we've moved outside the realm of the Constitution, into something different, because the Constitution does not allow that. This topic is about what remedies the Constitution provides within itself.
Click to expand...

They sure seem upset about presidential power when it is Trump in office but how many of them ever take issue with the huge power grab FDR engaged in?
 
TurtleDude said:
They sure seem upset about presidential power when it is Trump in office but how many of them ever take issue with the huge power grab FDR engaged in?
Click to expand...

Hi! If I'm not mistaken, the attempt to pack the Supreme Court was struck down. Thus, the third member of the Constitutional triumvirate did its job. That doesn't say that it will always do so.

Regards.
 
Back to the Constitutional loophole. Given a political party which can take control of a sufficiency of state governments to pass a constitutional amendment, seat a majority of favorable justices on the Supreme Court, hold a majority in both congressional houses and put a loyalist in the Oval Office, the sky's the limit to what the party can do to maintain its power legally.

Small wonder that some of the original critics at that time were leery of political parties.

A question to consider is this. Is the barrier protecting the people of a nation from their central government better served by a two party or a multiple party system?
 
Torus34 said:
A while back, President of the United States of America gave the talking heads and the news media something to fill time and space. He stated that he could pardon himself.

In fact, the Constitution is entirely silent with regard to the presidential pardon except for establishing it. The sole remedy for the misuse of the pardon is impeachment.

So ... If we have a would-be dictator in the White House and his/her party is willing to go along and holds a majority of the seats in the Senate, there is no remedy.

The founders seem, even given their mistrust of democracy, to have let one slip by here.
Click to expand...

They didn't let that slip. There is no remedy to an all powerful government. I mean, once you are talking about a super majority in the house and senate and the presidency being held by one party the pardon power is the least of your worries. The government polices itself.

The Declaration of Independence voices the thoughts of the founders on this. In the case where a government reaches the point of dictatorship, the only solution is to abandon that government. You can't do that without a fight, however, and so we have the 2nd Amendment.
 
jmotivator said:
They didn't let that slip. There is no remedy to an all powerful government. I mean, once you are talking about a super majority in the house and senate and the presidency being held by one party the pardon power is the least of your worries. The government polices itself.

The Declaration of Independence voices the thoughts of the founders on this. In the case where a government reaches the point of dictatorship, the only solution is to abandon that government. You can't do that without a fight, however, and so we have the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...

I can just see my neighbor with his rifle defeating a modern platoon. ;-)

Regards.
 
Torus34 said:
I can just see my neighbor with his rifle defeating a modern platoon. ;-)

Regards.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you are up on current events, but Afghanistan has fought the two most advanced armies in the world to a standstill in the last 35 years. Technological advancement only goes so far.
 
jmotivator said:
I'm not sure if you are up on current events, but Afghanistan has fought the two most advanced armies in the world to a standstill in the last 35 years. Technological advancement only goes so far.
Click to expand...

There's a difference here. The US, in its Afghanistan effort, most assuredly wasn't using its full resources in a do-or-die effort.

Regards.
 
Torus34 said:
A while back, President of the United States of America gave the talking heads and the news media something to fill time and space. He stated that he could pardon himself.

In fact, the Constitution is entirely silent with regard to the presidential pardon except for establishing it. The sole remedy for the misuse of the pardon is impeachment.

So ... If we have a would-be dictator in the White House and his/her party is willing to go along and holds a majority of the seats in the Senate, there is no remedy.

The founders seem, even given their mistrust of democracy, to have let one slip by here.
Click to expand...

The document is not perfect, and to a large extent it depends upon conscientious humans to fulfill the rule of law.

Conscientious humans are very much in short supply.
 
Thoreau72 said:
The document is not perfect, and to a large extent it depends upon conscientious humans to fulfill the rule of law.

Conscientious humans are very much in short supply.
Click to expand...

Hi! Regarding your last sentence, I suspect that this is not unusual.

Regards.
 
Torus34 said:
Hi! If I'm not mistaken, the attempt to pack the Supreme Court was struck down. Thus, the third member of the Constitutional triumvirate did its job. That doesn't say that it will always do so.

Regards.
Click to expand...

It wasn't "struck down." It just failed to pass, because it became politically poisonous.

It would have been constitutional had it passed. Congress may define the number of Justices on the Supreme Court as it wishes, as long as there's at least one.
 
Torus34 said:
A while back, President of the United States of America gave the talking heads and the news media something to fill time and space. He stated that he could pardon himself.

In fact, the Constitution is entirely silent with regard to the presidential pardon except for establishing it. The sole remedy for the misuse of the pardon is impeachment.

So ... If we have a would-be dictator in the White House and his/her party is willing to go along and holds a majority of the seats in the Senate, there is no remedy.

The founders seem, even given their mistrust of democracy, to have let one slip by here.
Click to expand...

If he pardoned himself for having committed “high crimes and misdemeanors”, the he committed those “high crimes and misdemeanors” and can be impeached and removed by the senate.

The whole point was to prevent the Lilliputians in the house and senate from using their separate powers to immobilize the presidency. They have one remedy: removal. Why? “The people elected him. Respect their decision”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom