Drag to reposition your photo

T Lee Horne III

Male. Lives in Pensacola, Florida, United States. Is single.

About Me

I retired when I turned 50 years old. I am working again at 72 years old.

I started back to work at A... View More

Liked Pages1

33 Likes

CSA II: The New Confederate States of America

Company, Organization, or Institution

T Lee Horne III

Report this User

Status Update

T Lee Horne III

January 21, 2025 7:54 am

Dave Moon January 21, 2025 · Biden’s Preemptive Pardons should be challenged in SCOTUS. Share this with your friends and your Congressman and Congresswoman. Here's a concise legal argument again... View MoreDave Moon January 21, 2025 · Biden’s Preemptive Pardons should be challenged in SCOTUS. Share this with your friends and your Congressman and Congresswoman. Here's a concise legal argument against the concept of presidential preemptive pardons: 1. **Constitutional Text and Intent**: - Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution grants the President the power to "grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." The phrasing "for Offenses" suggests that a pardon is intended for offenses that have already occurred, not for prospective or hypothetical crimes. Preemptive pardons would extend this power beyond the original intent of the framers, who likely envisioned pardons as a tool for mercy after the fact, not as a preventive measure. 2. **Separation of Powers**: - Allowing preemptive pardons could undermine the separation of powers by preemptively nullifying potential judicial proceedings. If a President could pardon crimes before they happen, it would effectively give the executive branch control over what laws could be enforced against certain individuals, thereby encroaching upon the judicial branch's role in interpreting and applying the law. 3. **Checks and Balances**: - Preemptive pardons would disrupt the system of checks and balances. The legislative branch creates laws, the judicial branch interprets them, and the executive branch is supposed to enforce them. Preemptive pardons would allow the President to dictate legal accountability, essentially making the President a law unto themselves in specific instances, which contradicts the foundational democratic principle of checks and balances. 4. **Historical Precedent and Interpretation**: - Historically, presidents have used the pardon power post-conviction or post-charge, not pre-crime. This practice supports an interpretation that pardons are meant for acts already committed. There's no clear historical precedent for preemptive pardons, suggesting they were not contemplated by the framers. 5. **Potential for Abuse**: - Preemptive pardons could lead to significant abuse, where individuals might act with impunity knowing they are shielded from legal consequences, thus undermining the rule of law. This could also encourage corruption or criminal activity if individuals close to the President are given such assurances. 6. **Legal and Moral Implications**: - Legally and morally, the notion that someone could be absolved of crimes before they are even committed raises profound issues about justice and accountability. It could be argued that this practice would not only be contrary to the spirit of the Constitution but also to the principles of justice that underpin the legal system. 7. **Judicial Review**: - Courts might find preemptive pardons invalid because they are not explicitly authorized by the Constitution, and any action not explicitly granted could be seen as beyond the President's enumerated powers. Courts have historically been cautious about expanding executive powers without clear constitutional backing. In conclusion, while the Constitution does not explicitly prohibit preemptive pardons, the argument against them is rooted in the text, historical application, and the structural principles of American constitutionalism designed to maintain a balance of power and uphold the rule of law.

View Less

Recent Photos

View More Photos