Will POTUS Joe Biden Reverse Trump’s Corrupt Pardons?

WashingtonMonthly.com

Can Trump’s Pardons Be Reversed?

by Holly Brewer and Timothy Noah

President Ulysses S. Grant did it, and George W. Bush, and the Constitution would seem to encourage it.

January 22, 2021
2:07 PM

We’ve seen a lot of hand-wringing about President Donald Trump’s eleventh-hour marathon of glaringly unethical pardons, but only a little consideration (see 1-here, 2-here, 3-here, 4-here, and 5-here) about whether the Constitution permits them. A decent case can be made that it does not—and that at least some of these pardons can be reversed.

The relevant passage is Article II, Section 2, in the so-called “Commander-in-chief clause.” The president, it says, “shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” Nobody knows precisely what that means, but Trump has been under impeachment and awaiting Senate trial — for the second time — since January 13, 2021.

The most interesting real-life precedent for restricting a president’s right to issue pardons concerns President Andrew Johnson, who in March 1868 became the first of three presidents to be impeached by Congress, and two months later became the first to win Senate acquittal.

In March 1869, Johnson, on his last full day in office, pardoned Jacob and Moses Dupuy, who’d been convicted of defrauding the Internal Revenue Department, and Richard C. Enright, who’d been convicted of conspiracy to defraud the government. On assuming office, Johnson’s successor, President Ulysses Grant, reversed all three by calling back the U.S. marshals out delivering the pardons. A fourth pardon that Grant meant to reverse, to one James F. Martin, was permitted to stand because Martin had it already in hand, according to the late P.S. Ruckman, Jr., a political scientist at Rock Valley College in Rockford, Illinois. Grant’s reversal of Moses Dupuy’s pardon was challenged in court and upheld on the technical grounds that Dupuy never received it. (Ruckman, an expert on presidential pardons,

Anti-Censorship Laws DO NOT Apply To Private Enterprise

For all the hoopla being raised by Banana Republicans parading as GOP types, including the Loser in Chief, about the decision Twitter made to cut him (and others) off from their private non-governmental service, and who are calling it “censorship,” the United States Supreme Court has some news for you:

Censorship laws DO NOT apply to the Private Sector.

Period.

If you don’t like it, take it up with those who decided it: KAVANAUGH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, ALITO, and GORSUCH, JJ., joined. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, and KAGAN, JJ., joined.

The case was Argued February 25, 2019 — Decided June 17, 2019, and named Manhattan Community Access Corp. et al. v. Halleck et al.

In a Certiorari to The United States Court Of Appeals For The Second Circuit, No. 17–1702, the court ruled that “The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment prohibits only governmental, not private, abridgment of speech,” and held that MNN (private nonprofit corporation, petitioner Manhattan Neighborhood Network (MNN)) was not a state actor subject to the First Amendment.

The court wrote further, that, “A private entity may qualify as a state actor when, as relevant here, the entity exercises “powers traditionally exclusively re-served to the State.” The precedent for that decision was rendered in the case Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U. S. 345, 352.

“The Court has stressed that “very few” functions fall into that category. Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U. S. 149, 158.”

In the decision, the court wrote in part that,

“Under the state-action doctrine as it has been articulated and applied by our precedents, we conclude that operation of public access channels on a cable system is not a traditional, exclusive public function. Moreover, a private entity such as MNN who opens its property for speech by others is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor. In operating the public access channels, MNN is a private actor, not a state actor, and MNN therefore is not subject to First Amendment constraints on its editorial discretion. We reverse in relevant part the judgment of the Second Circuit, and we remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

The background facts of the case which formed the basis of the suit are fairly straight-forward, and reads as follows:

“DeeDee Halleck and Jesus Papoleto Melendez produced public access programming in Manhattan. They made a film about MNN’s alleged neglect of the East Harlem community. Halleck submitted the film to MNN for airing on MNN’s public access channels, and MNN later televised the film. Afterwards, MNN fielded multiple complaints about the film’s content. In response, MNN temporarily suspended Halleck from using the public access channels. Halleck and Melendez soon became embroiled in another dispute with MNN staff. In the wake of that dispute, MNN ultimately suspended Halleck and Melendez from all MNN services and facilities. Halleck and Melendez then sued MNN, among other parties, in Federal District Court. The two producers claimed that MNN violated their First Amendment free-speech rights when MNN restricted their access to the public access channels because of the content of their film.

“MNN moved to dismiss the producers’ First Amendment claim on the ground that MNN is not a state actor and therefore is not subject to First Amendment restrictions on its editorial discretion. The District Court agreed with MNN and dismissed the producers’ First Amendment claim.

“The Second Circuit reversed in relevant part. 882 F. 3d 300, 308 (2018). In the majority opinion authored by Judge Newman and joined by Judge Lohier, the court stated that the public access channels in Manhattan are a public forum for purposes of the First Amendment. Reasoning that “public forums are usually operated by governments,” the court concluded that MNN is a state actor subject to First Amendment constraints. Id., at 306–307. Judge Lohier added a concurring opinion, explaining that MNN also qualifies as a state actor for the independent reason that “New York City delegated to MNN the traditionally public function of administering and regulating speech in the public forum of Manhattan’s public access channels.” Id., at 309.

“Judge Jacobs dissented in relevant part, opining that MNN is not a state actor. He reasoned that a private entity’s operation of an open forum for speakers does not render the host entity a state actor. Judge Jacobs further stated that the operation of public access channels is not a traditional, exclusive public function.

“We granted certiorari to resolve disagreement among the Courts of Appeals on the question whether private operators of public access cable channels are state actors subject to the First Amendment. 586 U. S. __ (2018). Compare 882 F. 3d 300 (case below), with Wilcher v. Akron, 498 F. 3d 516 (CA6 2007); and Alliance for Community Media v. FCC, 56 F. 3d 105 (CADC 1995).”

Certiorari [pronounced “sir-sha-rar-ee”] is a writ [a written order issued by a court] seeking review of a lower court decision by a higher court.

The court wrote also that,

Trump Administration Making Roadway For Illegal Aliens In Desert

Dynamite raises clouds of dust above Guadalupe Canyon, near the New Mexico-Arizona border. The Diamond A Ranch, which is located next to the construction site, has sued the government, claiming the blasting has sent “car-sized boulders tumbling down onto ranch property.”
Image by John Kurc

The Trump administration is making it easier for illegal aliens to come into the United States.

The route along the U.S./Mexico border in Arizona and New Mexico has some of the most ruggedly inhospitable, and treacherous terrain in the nation. It is only barely accessible by foot, or mule, and is range for numerous wild animals, such as the jaguar, and ocelot – large cats – and a longtime wildlife migration corridor.

Construction crews using tons of explosives in a technique called “pioneering,” are leveling mountains and cliffs to make roadways for heavy equipment to access the area.

The private landowners complaint and lawsuit states that crews must first “make a level road, with the necessary grade and ability to support the weight of construction vehicles, and ultimately the wall itself.”

In a combined Federal lawsuit filed by private landowners near the Arizona-New Mexico border known as the malpais, or badlands, the owners of

Why Amy Coney Barrett Is Unqualified

True to form, radicalized, far right-wing political extremists are portraying Judge A.C. Barrett as a victim. The “poor, pitiful me” routine has taken hold in the GOP, Tea Party and other such ilk. Self loathing has never been more popular, it seems. But it does seem rather peculiar that it should find residence in the right, when for years we’ve been told that it is the political left who are such whiners and crybabies.

Aaaah… the political hypocrisy! You can smell the stench of its cooking all the way from the banks of the Potomac in Washington, D.C.

And the blindly vicious ambition! Its unmitigated violence permeates the miasmatic ether surrounding the city, all the way to the Chesapeake Bay, and beyond.

They’re both forms of pollution which Congress continues to ignore, and which are far more damaging than even dirty water, or air. For their poison, while not permanent like PFOS or PFAS, the man-made “forever chemicals” used in making non-stick coatings which are found even in newborns’ blood, there are few, if any, filters to remove such contaminants from the necessary processes we employ to govern ourselves.

While “organic,” such contaminants are far from resembling a healthy backyard compost pile where grass clippings, leaves, eggshells, coffee grounds, vegetable peelings, and other such items begin their transformation process to become rich humus, fertile soil for vegetable and plant growth. Their forms, while neither ephemeral, nor impermanent, per se, are causative of other illnesses and diseases transmitted even to the 3rd and 4th generations, and beyond – all preventable – and must be guarded against by every generation.

The only difference being, is that disorders caused by those infections are preventable by conscience, not by manufacture. And the inoculation against such infection and affliction is love.

“Contrary to the impression many have of Barrett, what is most striking about her record is not the looming specter of theocracy, but her enduring opposition to what many Christians believe justice and mercy demand, presented under the aspect of originalism — an ersatz catechism, written in the pages of her judicial opinions, that fuses the political aims of the religious right with the constitutional theories of the late Antonin Scalia.”

There is NO “war” against religious faith in this nation, nor has there ever been. Neither has there ever been any alleged “war against Christmas” by our government, nor by its elected officials and administrators… like Federal judges, and other lifetime appointees. Although, it is curious how an officially non-sectarian, non-religious government sponsors a Federal holiday acknowledging a deity, thereby giving deference, homage and support to the same.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Rather, our Founders, not all of whom were religious-minded, were cognizant of others’ desires to express themselves through the practice of a privately-held conviction of faith – if they so chose – collectively and individually, according to the dictates of their conscience, and allowed to the greatest extent possible the practice of the same, without impingement upon the practices of government, and without obtruding upon others, who might, or not, agree with them. The Founders thought that aspect of individual liberty was so inherent, so inviolable, so sacrosanct to the public good, that they ensconced it, along with a few others, and made it and them First, and foremost among all others which followed.

Our fundamental foundational governing document, the Constitution, ensures and guarantees rights to

#Abortion Is A #Religious Matter

Your remark “in God we trust” has validated what I wrote, which is that “Abortion is a religious matter. It is NOT one for the government.”

On a strictly PERSONAL RELIGIOUS level, I oppose abortion. And yet, as a strictly legal, Constitutional matter, I acknowledge that our United States Supreme Court has decided that we the people have the FREEDOM to make deeply personal decisions for ourselves, WITHOUT governmental interference.

Imagine, if you can, if the government told you that you must have a tubal ligation, or that you must have a hysterectomy… or, for a man, that he must have a vasectomy, or an orchidectomy (surgical removal of the testicles) so that they could no longer reproduce. Would you like that? Would you think that would be good? What if your neighbor could

Late Term #Abortion #Politics On #DebateNight

A few thoughts on a Presidential Debate topic by Moderator Chris Wallace of Fox News, with candidates Hillary Clinton (D) and Donald Trump (R) from the third, and final debate held last night at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Wednesday, 19 October 2016:

1.) Tweet from Dr. Jen Gunter, MD: “There is no such thing as a ninth month abortion – I’m a doctor who trained in late term abortions”
https://twitter.com/DrJenGunter/status/788912646330257408

2.) A portion of her blog entry (linked herein) on the topic from the Debate states: “Trump’s statement, as incorrect as it may be, supports the fallacy of the due-date abortion. It is a common anti-choice narrative that

We Need Prayer Back In Schools!

“We need prayer back in schools!,” said someone.

“Okay,” I said. “Whose prayer do you want? The Episcopalians? The Baptists? The Methodists? Church of Christ? What about the Jehovah’s Witnesses? Or the Seventh Day Adventists? Do you want the Primitive Baptists, or the Free Will Baptists?

Once, upon a time, FaceBookistan held a vote on their Privacy Policy… and there was 0.04% turnout.

Now let’s be honest about this.

How many people here KNEW that FaceBook was conducting a privacy policy vote?

Raise your hands and wave if you did.

How’d you find out?

Did you tell your friends?

Do these issue even raise the slightest bit of concern with you?

Even if these issues do concern you, why doesn’t FaceBook make greater, more significant efforts to inform their user base & general public?

Slowly but surely FaceBookistan is becoming like the elephant in the tent.

Slowly but surely, your privacy is being eroded.

Does anyone really give a rat’s rip?

—

Facebook Holds a Vote and Turnout Is Low

By SOMINI SENGUPTA, June 8, 2012, 9:39 pm

It has more than 900 million people. It has its own currency. And this month, for the first time, the digital republic known as Facebook held elections of a sort: it offered users a chance to vote on the way the site is governed, including how the company deploys its users’ data.

Turnout was spectacularly bad in the digital republic that the writer Rebecca Mackinnon has dubbed Facebookistan. Fewer than 350,000 Facebook users voted, or under 0.04 percent.

“Given these efforts and the subsequent turnout,” Elliot Schrage, its vice president of communications and public policy, wrote on the site, “We plan to

SOPA… exactly what is it?

Unless you work in media, pay attention to issues relating to the operation of the Internet or laws concerning the same, chances are, you’ve probably not even heard about the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) introduced by House of Representatives, or the Senate’s PROTECT IP Act (PIPA).

The title sounds good, doesn’t it?

Who wants online piracy, anyway?

Turns out, it’s a really bad – indeed, a phenomenally bad – idea.

Regardless how you identify yourself politically, the ideas promoted in SOPA are a seriously genuine breach of the Bill of Rights, and

The Last Fair Deal Gone Down: Robert Johnson, Racism and Abortion

Late American Blues guitarist/singer/songwriter Robert Johnson, a Negro, died at the tender young age of 27, in 1938. There are less than 50 recordings of his, of which historians are aware. Among musicologists, researchers and others, his performances are considered treasures and remain the subject of great debate, even today.

If Robert Johnson’s mother were alive today, living in New York City and in the prime of her childbearing years, the flower of her youth, and were to become pregnant with him today…

Alabama’s Certificate of Need Law

Wow!

With what I know about Alabama’s CON law, I could write volumes! And then, the title’s enough to get me started. I decided to use the “KISS” principle – Keep It Simple, Stupid.

If you’re a follower of Alabama politics – even casually – then you most likely have heard of, or remember former Governor Don Siegelman and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy being convicted jointly of a “quid pro quo,” or more exactly, Siegelman was accused of accepting Scrushy’s bribe… to sit on the CON Board.

Never mind that the FBI extensively coached a known perjurer about what and how to testify – itself an illegal act – and never mind that Scrushy was appointed by two governors of two different parties to sit on the CON Board, and publicly expressed disdain for serving again. But that’s all water under the bridge. I only mentioned that because of its poignancy, and is relative to this post.

I sincerely doubt that most folks know that in Alabama, at least, not just anyone, or any organization can decide to build a hospital. For example, if Warren Buffett and Bill Gates decided that together, they wanted to gift the good people of Alabama with a hospital, they could NOT do it.

Why?

Read on to find out!