Comments on: The Libby Commutation through a Nixonian Lens http://dissidentvoice.org/2007/07/the-libby-commutation-through-a-nixonian-lens/ a radical newsletter in the struggle for peace and social justice Thu, 08 Dec 2011 15:07:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: gerald spezio http://dissidentvoice.org/2007/07/the-libby-commutation-through-a-nixonian-lens/#comment-2899 gerald spezio Sat, 14 Jul 2007 17:09:20 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/07/the-libby-commutation-through-a-nixonian-lens/#comment-2899 Oh, now I understand. Bush, his lawyers, and most other lawyers don't understand daLAW! They mis-read The Constitution. They are legally deslexic or have ADHD. They trained too much? Or too little? They are relying on case law - casuistry. The stupid bastards. Why can't they read The Constitution, for Chrissake? Yabut, there are really smart lawyers who know daLAW. The smart lawyers will cornhole the stupid lawyers just like the founding fathers planned. Hey, Leon Jaworski got Nixon. Ayyup. Oh, now I understand. Bush, his lawyers, and most other lawyers don’t understand daLAW! They mis-read The Constitution. They are legally deslexic or have ADHD. They trained too much? Or too little?

They are relying on case law – casuistry. The stupid bastards. Why can’t they read The Constitution, for Chrissake?

Yabut, there are really smart lawyers who know daLAW. The smart lawyers will cornhole the stupid lawyers just like the founding fathers planned. Hey, Leon Jaworski got Nixon.
Ayyup.

]]> By: davidgmills http://dissidentvoice.org/2007/07/the-libby-commutation-through-a-nixonian-lens/#comment-2846 davidgmills Fri, 13 Jul 2007 13:00:32 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/07/the-libby-commutation-through-a-nixonian-lens/#comment-2846 Let me add a few comments. Most lawyers don't actually know the text of the Constitution very well. This is proof. It does not surprise me in the slightest that many of the legal pundits on TV and elsewhere have missed this important provision of the Constitution. But let's give our founding fathers credit. Certainly, they did not want the President to have the unchecked power to pardon the members of his administration because the founders knew the power of the pardon could be used to silence the people the President had put in office. Apparently, Nixon, who was a lawyer, had read this provision of the Constitution or had lawyers who had read it. For whatever reason, Nixon knew better than to pardon the Watergate conspirators and burglars. But Bush is not a lawyer and the lawyers he has around him constantly interpret the Constitution in ways never envisioned. Apparently Bush was not counseled against it, or if he was, he went ahead anyway. Why don't lawyers and Congress know this? Because there probably has never been a case like it and they are relying on case law rather than the text of the Constitution itself. There probably has never been so clear a case of a President using the pardon power to obstruct justice into his own wrongdoing. And none of the lawyers or Congressmen involved has bothered to look at the text of the Constitution to see how the founding fathers envisioned handling this situation. But this really is simple. Congress has the power to stop the President from these pardons because they are so suspicious on their face. And Congress has the right to decide that when the President abuses his pardon power in this manner and when the pardon power is used quid pro quo and in essence used as a bribe to obstruct justice. Impeach Libby first and make him do his time (and maybe he will talk). Impeach Bush second for the high crime of bribery (if Libby rats him out). So damn simple. These people in Washington need to get a clue. Let me add a few comments.

Most lawyers don’t actually know the text of the Constitution very well. This is proof. It does not surprise me in the slightest that many of the legal pundits on TV and elsewhere have missed this important provision of the Constitution.

But let’s give our founding fathers credit. Certainly, they did not want the President to have the unchecked power to pardon the members of his administration because the founders knew the power of the pardon could be used to silence the people the President had put in office.

Apparently, Nixon, who was a lawyer, had read this provision of the Constitution or had lawyers who had read it. For whatever reason, Nixon knew better than to pardon the Watergate conspirators and burglars. But Bush is not a lawyer and the lawyers he has around him constantly interpret the Constitution in ways never envisioned. Apparently Bush was not counseled against it, or if he was, he went ahead anyway.

Why don’t lawyers and Congress know this? Because there probably has never been a case like it and they are relying on case law rather than the text of the Constitution itself. There probably has never been so clear a case of a President using the pardon power to obstruct justice into his own wrongdoing. And none of the lawyers or Congressmen involved has bothered to look at the text of the Constitution to see how the founding fathers envisioned handling this situation.

But this really is simple. Congress has the power to stop the President from these pardons because they are so suspicious on their face. And Congress has the right to decide that when the President abuses his pardon power in this manner and when the pardon power is used quid pro quo and in essence used as a bribe to obstruct justice.

Impeach Libby first and make him do his time (and maybe he will talk).

Impeach Bush second for the high crime of bribery (if Libby rats him out).

So damn simple. These people in Washington need to get a clue.

]]> By: Hue Longer http://dissidentvoice.org/2007/07/the-libby-commutation-through-a-nixonian-lens/#comment-2783 Hue Longer Thu, 12 Jul 2007 13:43:16 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/07/the-libby-commutation-through-a-nixonian-lens/#comment-2783 I may be a lawer but I am not a lawyer...heheh I may be a lawer but I am not a lawyer…heheh

]]> By: Hue Longer http://dissidentvoice.org/2007/07/the-libby-commutation-through-a-nixonian-lens/#comment-2782 Hue Longer Thu, 12 Jul 2007 13:41:29 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/07/the-libby-commutation-through-a-nixonian-lens/#comment-2782 gerald, if you believe that lawers are liars whose words should therefore be scrutinized, fine... But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater and assume all is shit. I am not a lawer, have read this article and can find no fallacy or hidden agenda. If you were to explain what I'm missing without ad hom against Mr. Mills, I'd appreciate it. gerald, if you believe that lawers are liars whose words should therefore be scrutinized, fine… But don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater and assume all is shit. I am not a lawer, have read this article and can find no fallacy or hidden agenda. If you were to explain what I’m missing without ad hom against Mr. Mills, I’d appreciate it.

]]>