Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Stonepounder

(4,033 posts)
Wed Aug 30, 2017, 12:14 PM Aug 2017

Legal challenge to Arpaio pardon begins

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/08/30/legal-challenge-to-arpaio-pardon-begins/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-b%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.18f72244a14e

Protect Democracy*, an activist group seeking to thwart Trump’s violations of legal norms, and a group of lawyers have sent a letter to Raymond N. Hulser and John Dixon Keller of the Public Integrity Section, Criminal Division of the Justice Department, arguing that the pardon goes beyond constitutional limits. In their letter obtained by Right Turn, they argue:

While the Constitution’s pardon power is broad, it is not unlimited. Like all provisions of the original Constitution of 1787, it is limited by later-enacted amendments, starting with the Bill of Rights. For example, were a president to announce that he planned to pardon all white defendants convicted of a certain crime but not all black defendants, that would conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

Similarly, issuance of a pardon that violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause is also suspect. Under the Due Process Clause, no one in the United States (citizen or otherwise) may “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” But for due process and judicial review to function, courts must be able to restrain government officials. Due process requires that, when a government official is found by a court to be violating individuals’ constitutional rights, the court can issue effective relief (such as an injunction) ordering the official to cease this unconstitutional conduct. And for an injunction to be effective, there must be a penalty for violation of the injunction—principally, contempt of court.

Put simply, the argument is that the president cannot obviate the court’s powers to enforce its orders when the constitutional rights of others is at stake. “The president can’t use the pardon power to immunize lawless officials from consequences for violating people’s constitutional rights,” says one of the lawyers who authored the letter, Ron Fein, legal director of Free Speech for People. Clearly, there is a larger concern here that goes beyond Arpaio. “After repeatedly belittling and undermining judges verbally and on Twitter, now President Trump is escalating his attack on the courts into concrete actions,” says Ian Bassin, executive director of Protect Democracy. “His pardon and celebration of Joe Arpaio for ignoring a judicial order is a threat to our democracy and every citizen’s rights, and should not be allowed to stand.”


* https://unitedtoprotectdemocracy.org/about/

More at link. Note that the Washington Post has dropped its paywall for the duration of the Harvey emergency.
7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Legal challenge to Arpaio pardon begins (Original Post) Stonepounder Aug 2017 OP
K&R Stonepounder saidsimplesimon Aug 2017 #1
I've been subscribing to the Post to get around their paywall. Nitram Aug 2017 #2
If Arpaio were still a sitting Sheriff, this argument might have a leg to stand on. Hassin Bin Sober Aug 2017 #3
This argument would at least seem to uphold the constitution:: vkkv Aug 2017 #5
Nope. Hassin Bin Sober Aug 2017 #6
I guess we'll find out! Could be interesting at least. vkkv Aug 2017 #7
Arpaio.. he's got a thing about pink undies and humiliation doesn't he.. vkkv Aug 2017 #4

Hassin Bin Sober

(26,272 posts)
3. If Arpaio were still a sitting Sheriff, this argument might have a leg to stand on.
Wed Aug 30, 2017, 02:04 PM
Aug 2017

Even then it would be a stretch.

If the president were using some sort of revolving pardon to immunize a sitting sheriff from prosecution for violation of rights it would be a huge Constitutional crisis. This ain't that.

 

vkkv

(3,384 posts)
5. This argument would at least seem to uphold the constitution::
Wed Aug 30, 2017, 03:27 PM
Aug 2017

“The president can’t use the pardon power to immunize lawless officials from consequences for violating people’s constitutional rights,” says one of the lawyers


yes?

Hassin Bin Sober

(26,272 posts)
6. Nope.
Wed Aug 30, 2017, 04:28 PM
Aug 2017

The Constitution is pretty cut and dried on this.

The only way to stop him is through impeachment. That's the only check on his pardon power.

 

vkkv

(3,384 posts)
4. Arpaio.. he's got a thing about pink undies and humiliation doesn't he..
Wed Aug 30, 2017, 03:23 PM
Aug 2017

What's he hiding?

Self-hate for being afraid that he is gay?

Meanness is usually associated with some hang-up, imaginary or not.
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»Legal challenge to Arpaio...