The President IS a King
Rep Jerrold Nadler was on Democracy Now yesterday and he said some things that make me realize the President is in fact a dictator for the period he is in office. Nadler said the following.
"A president, anyone in this country, must be subject to the rule of law and not above it. The people are sovereign, not the president. And someone who says that if the president does it, it's legal, betrays the Constitution and betrays the entire goal of American government, which is to have rule by the people, not by a king."But this was preceded by a discussion of the pardon power.
"The pardon power is pretty unlimited. Some people would say totally unlimited... It is entirely possible that this President Bush will say, "I hereby pardon anyone who, between September 11th, 2001 and December 31st, 2008, allegedly violated the statutes against torture," or whatever. He could do that. That's a preemptive pardon. I think it's wrong, as a matter of--not as a matter of law. It ought to be wrong as a matter of law."That the pardon power is unlimited means that when the president does something illegal, he could simultaneously pardon himself for that crime. In other words, Nixon and Cheney were/are correct. The only exception to this absolute power is spelled out in the Constitution in Article 2, Section 2.
"and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."In other words, if Congress is unwilling or unable to impeach and doesn't move on that before pardons are issued, then the President is de facto King of the United States. Ironically, Nadler thinks impeachment is off the table for several reasons. But it may be the only mechanism for justice in this case. With the recent confessions from Cheney, expect blanket pardons.
Advertisement
Cheney just said that the Pres has the code for nuclear war and he has complete and total power over that issue without interference by the Courts or Congress.
On the pardons. w does not understand that he has done anything wrong. It is his pathology.
He has never had to pay for a mistake in his life.
If I had any money, I would bet there are going to be no blanket pardons.
December 24, 2008 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hope you are right about the blanket pardons - their belief in their own rightness could be a weakness.
On Presidential power, a lot of people took this exchange to be a weaker "Frost/Nixon" moment.
Standing alone its not quite that, but looking at the history its clear he thinks that. Nadler has pointed out a fundamental flaw in the Constitution. Nadler, Glenn Greenwald and others calling for criminals investigations appeal to the spirit of the law, but the pardon power trumps that.
December 24, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, the contradictions in the law!
December 24, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
The ability to spring anyone from jail does not a dictator make. Far reaching power indeed, but a power that is limited in its ability to control the citizens and machinery of the State.
December 24, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see how they're going to pull off any kind of leniency tricks once the public becomes fully enamored of the fact that they TORTURED TODDLER'S TESTICLES. Jesus loves him some little children....all the children of the world.
Pass it on.
Pardon away Mr. Bush. It ain't gonna make a damn bit of difference. The world is gonna get you. How long did it take the Jews to track down all the Nazi's that fled after WW2?
As an aside, I don't believe for ONE MINUTE that it will ever be LEGAL to pardon youself for WAR CRIMES. Just NOT gonna HAPPEN. Self admission only makes the job easier. The fact they all lied about it at the time (until plausible dependability finally bit them in the ass) just shows that THEY KNEW it was illegal. Note how they went from "WE WOULD NEVER DO SUCH A THING" to "WE'RE PROUD WE DID IT"
Enjoy.
December 24, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nadler's reading of the Constitution makes it clear that, with unlimited pardon power, the President is a dictator, free to break whatever laws he is willing to pardon himself for. The only thing keeping him from doing this is public opinion.
So, is the blaring "we're proud we tortured" to (a) legitimize the blanket pardons when they come in 3 weeks or (b) dare Obama to appoint Fitzy to come after them?
I'm hoping for (b), but Constitutionally they can go with (a) and they would be untouchable by criminal charges.
December 25, 2008 12:07 AM | Reply | Permalink