Illegals demand Obama issue mass pardons amid Trump deportation fears

President Barack Obama meets with a group of "Dreamers" in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, Wednesday, Feb. 4, 2015. The president is accusing opponents of his immigration action of failing to think about the "human consequences." The president spoke during an Oval Office meeting Wednesday with six of young immigrants who would be subject to eventual deportation under a bill passed by the House. The legislation would overturn Obama's executive actions limiting deportations for millions here illegally and giving them the ability to work. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times - Tuesday, November 15, 2016

Illegal immigrants are preparing to ask President Obama to pardon some 750,000 Dreamers, saying such a move is their last, best hope to stave off what they fear will be a wave of deportations once Donald Trump takes the Oval Office.

Community leaders have planned a rally in New York on Wednesday to make the request.

“Millions of law abiding undocumented immigrants are fearful of what will happen when the new Administration takes control in January,” the group of New York state lawmakers and immigration advocates said in a statement announcing the rally. “However, President Obama has the power of pardons that he can use to protect all DACA enrollees.”

As of September, more than 740,000 illegal immigrants had been approved for Mr. Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, a minor amnesty that grants young adult illegal immigrants a two-year stay of deportation and issues them work permits, entitling them to driver’s licenses and some taxpayer benefits.

Mr. Trump has signaled that he would cancel that order, leaving Dreamers out of status when their work permits expire. That puts Mr. Obama in a bind because he has expressed an interest in helping illegal immigrants but also has acknowledged limits on power.

Mr. Obama ducked a question this week about what steps he might take and instead urged Mr. Trump to “think long and hard” before canceling the DACA program.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/15/illegals-demand-oba...

Views: 400

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Not Happening Amigo...Go Back And Do It The Right Way.

Someone please tell these idiots the illegal aliens if they had of come here LEGALLY they would not need a pardon to stay . By the way the fraud usurper barack hussein obama cannot pardon anyone because he himself is an ILLEGAL ALIEN using a forged birth certificate to prove he is a US Citizen . 

Now that Obama has lost his meal ticket with Hildabeast being DEFEATED or should I say exposed.  The LAME DUCK president needs to be down graded to Crippled / Dead Duck president.  Destroy all of his illegal actions/executive orders, restore the rule of law.  I hope Trump will prosecute them all to the full extent of the law.  That would be money well spent!  Build that wall, and close down the illegal highway.

all you illegals...look in the mirror....YOUR ILLEGAL.

Who raised these dopes??

The first two words of the headline tell us almost everything that has gone wrong with America.

Under the constitution you can't pardon any one be some one has been charged and convicted of a crime, None of these people have been convicted. Trump could reverse it. 

"you can't pardon any one be some one has been charged and convicted of a crime"  Then how do you explain that two people (that we are aware of) have been pardoned without being convicted of a crime and one without even being charged:  Marc Rich and Richard Nixon?

"The President . . . shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

(Article II, Section 2, Clause 1)

The power to pardon is one of the least limited powers granted to the President in the Constitution. The only limits mentioned in the Constitution are that pardons are limited to offenses against the United States (i.e., not civil or state cases), and that they cannot affect an impeachment process. A reprieve is the commutation or lessening of a sentence already imposed; it does not affect the legal guilt of a person. A pardon, however, completely wipes out the legal effects of a conviction. A pardon can be issued from the time an offense is committed, and can even be issued after the full sentence has been served. It cannot, however, be granted before an offense has been committed, which would give the President the power to waive the laws.

The presidential power to pardon was derived from the royal English Prerogative of Kings, which dated from before the Norman invasion. The royal power was absolute, and the king often granted a pardon in exchange for money or military service. Parliament tried unsuccessfully to limit the king's pardon power, and finally it succeeded to some degree in 1701 when it passed the Act of Settlement, which exempted impeachment from the royal pardon power.

During the period of the Articles of Confederation, the state constitutions conferred pardon powers of varying scopes on their governors, but neither the New Jersey Plan nor the Virginia Plan presented at the Constitutional Convention included a pardon power for the chief executive. On May 29, 1787, Charles Pinckney introduced a proposal to give the chief executive the same pardon power as enjoyed by English monarchs, that is, complete power with the exception of impeachment. Some delegates argued that treason should be excluded from the pardon power. George Mason argued that the President's pardon power "may be sometimes exercised to screen from punishment those whom he had secretly instigated to commit the crime and thereby prevent a discovery of his own guilt." James Wilson answered that pardons for treason should be available and successfully argued that the power would be best used by the President. Impeachment was available if the President himself was involved in the treason. A proposal for Senate approval of presidential pardons was also defeated.

The development of the use of the pardon power reflects its several purposes. One purpose is to temper justice with mercy in appropriate cases, and to do justice if new or mitigating evidence comes to bear on a person who may have been wrongfully convicted. Alexander Hamilton reflects this in The Federalist No. 74, in which he argues that "humanity and good policy" require that "the benign prerogative of pardoning" was necessary to mitigate the harsh justice of the criminal code. The pardon power would provide for "exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt."

Chief Justice John Marshall in United States v. Wilson (1833) also commented on the benign aspects of the pardon power: "A pardon is an act of grace, proceeding from the power entrusted with the execution of the laws, which exempts the individual, on whom it is bestowed from the punishment the law inflicts for a crime he has committed. It is the private, though official act of the executive magistrate…." Another purpose of the pardon power focuses not on obtaining justice for the person pardoned, but rather on the public-policy purposes of the government. For instance, James Wilson argued during the Convention that "pardon before conviction might be necessary in order to obtain the testimony of accomplices." The public-policy purposes of the pardon were echoed by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Biddle v. Perovich (1927): "A pardon in our days is not a private act of grace from an individual happening to possess power. It is a part of the constitutional scheme."

Pardons have also been used for the broader public-policy purpose of ensuring peace and tranquility in the case of uprisings and to bring peace after internal conflicts. Its use might be needed in such cases. As Alexander Hamilton argued in The Federalist No. 74, "in seasons of insurrection or rebellion there are often critical moments when a well-timed offer of pardon to the insurgents or rebels may restore the tranquility of the commonwealth; and which, if suffered to pass unimproved, it may never be possible afterwards to recall." Presidents have sought to use the pardon power to overcome or mitigate the effects of major crises that afflicted the polity. President George Washington granted an amnesty to those who participated in the Whiskey Rebellion; Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson issued amnesties to those involved with the Confederates during the Civil War; and Presidents Gerald R. Ford and James Earl Carter granted amnesties to Vietnam-era draft evaders.

The scope of the pardon power remains quite broad, almost plenary. As Justice Stephen Field wrote in Ex parte Garland (1867), "If granted before conviction, it prevents any of the penalties and disabilities consequent upon conviction from attaching [thereto]; if granted after conviction, it removes the penalties and disabilities, and restores him to all his civil rights; it makes him, as it were, a new man, and gives him a new credit and capacity…. A pardon reaches both the punishment prescribed for the offence and the guilt of the offender…so that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offence." A pardon is valid whether accepted or not, because its purposes are primarily public. It is an official act. According to United States v. Klein (1871), Congress cannot limit the President's grant of an amnesty or pardon, but it can grant other or further amnesties itself. Though pardons have been litigated, the Court has consistently refused to limit the President's discretion. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, however, in Schick v. Reed (1974), seemed to limit the Court's restraint to pardons under "conditions which do not in themselves offend the Constitution."

The possibility of a President pardoning himself for a crime is not precluded by the explicit language of the Constitution, and, during the summer of 1974, some of President Richard M. Nixon's lawyers argued that it was constitutionally permissible. But a broader reading of the Constitution and the general principles of the traditions of United States law might lead to the conclusion that a self-pardon is constitutionally impermissible. It would seem to violate the principles that a man should not be a judge in his own case; that the rule of law is supreme and the United States is a nation of laws, not men; and that the President is not above the law.

The pardon power has been and will remain a powerful constitutional tool of the President. Its use has the potential to achieve much good for the polity or to increase political conflict. Only the wisdom of the President can ensure its appropriate use.

 

As an immigration hardliner, Kobach reportedly has no patience for deferred deportations and/or amnesty.

According to The Washington Post, “He has helped shepherd dozens of restrictive (illegal) immigration measures at the state and local levels across the country and is known for his affiliation with the Immigration Reform Law Institute.”

Moreover, he has opposed all efforts to hand illegal immigrants amnesty and reportedly played a role in the lawsuits filed years ago challenging President Barack Obama’s executive action on illegal immigration.

American citizens come First. Our ancestors
Came in legally through Ellis Island. Illegals didn't.

Ilegals Demand?   Those two words should not go together.

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by Steve BreenPolitical Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

ALERT ALERT

Joe Biden Talks To The Dead: – He Worked On Paris Climate Deal With Long-Dead Chinese Leader

Former Vice President Joe Biden mistakenly claimed on Monday that he worked on the Paris Climate Accord with former Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping — who died more than 20 years before its signing.

Zach Parkinson  

Joe Biden claimed tonight that he worked with Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping on the Paris Climate Accord.

Except the current Chinese President is Xi Jinping.

Deng Xiapoing left office in 1992 and has been dead for 23 years.

Biden made the gaffe while citing his accomplishments in President Barack Obama’s administration.

“One of the things I’m proudest of is getting passed, getting moved, getting in control of the Paris Climate Accord,” Biden said in a speech at the College of Charleston. “I’m the guy who came back after meeting with Deng Xiaoping and making the case that I believe China will join if we put pressure on them. We got almost 200 nations to join.”

Xiaoping served as the leader of China from 1978 until his retirement in 1992, and passed away in 1997. Xi Jinping, China’s current president, came to power 2013 and signed the country onto the 2016 agreement.

In June 2017, President Trump announced that the U.S. would withdraw from the agreement, stating that accord will “undermine the economy” and “puts [the United States] at a permanent disadvantage.”

In addition to the Xiaoping gaffe, Biden bizarrely declared in a campaign speech that he is a “candidate for the United States Senate” and that people could “vote for the other Biden” if they prefer one of his rivals.

“My name is Joe Biden. I’m a Democratic candidate for the United States Senate. Look me over, if you like what you see, help out. If not, vote for the other Biden,” the 77-year-old said at the First in the South Dinner.

Biden’s confusing comments come as Democrat primary candidates are scheduled to debate in Charleston Tuesday evening. The former vice president faces increasing pressure to give a standout performance as his “firewall” in the Palmetto State crumbles in the face of a surging Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). The Vermont senator is fresh off a decisive victory in Nevada caucuses on Saturday. Earlier this month, he placed first the New Hampshire primary and won the popular vote in Iowa. In a survey released Monday, the Public Policy Polling outfit said Biden leads South Carolina with 36 percent of support and Sanders is in second at 21 percent.

Hannity: Bernie's beyond gross article

© 2020   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service