Obama plans clemency for hundreds of non-violent drug offenders

[KingOrfeo]

From Yahoo News:

Now, in his final years in office, Obama has trained his sights on prisoners like Scrivner, and wants to use his previously dormant pardon power as part of a larger strategy to restore fairness to the criminal-justice system. A senior administration official tells Yahoo News the president could grant clemency to "hundreds, perhaps thousands" of people locked up for nonviolent drug crimes by the time he leaves office — a stunning number that hasn't been seen since Gerald Ford extended amnesty to Vietnam draft dodgers in the 1970s.

The scope of the new clemency initiative is so large that administration officials are preparing a series of personnel and process changes to help them manage the influx of petitions they expect Obama to approve. Among the changes is reforming the recently censured office within the Justice Department responsible for processing pardon petitions. Yahoo News has learned that the pardon attorney, Ronald Rodgers, who was criticized in a 2012 Internal watchdog report for mishandling a high-profile clemency petition, is likely to step down as part of that overhaul. Additional procedures for handling large numbers of clemency petitions could be announced as soon as this week, a senior administration official said, though it could take longer.

 

[Byron In Exile]

When it came to using his only unfettered presidential power — to pardon felons and to reduce the sentences of prisoners — Obama was incredibly stingy in his first term. Vanita Gupta, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, calls his record on mercy "abysmal." He pardoned just 22 people — fewer than any modern president — and commuted the sentence of just one. An applicant for commutation like Scrivner had just a 1-in-5,000 chance of getting a reduced sentence with Obama in his first term — compared with a 1-in-100 chance under Presidents Reagan and Clinton, according to an analysis by ProPublica.

 

[Beatnic_jazzman]

Pardon.

Assuming that the pardon expunges the original conviction then this is good news indeed. I just wish he had the courage to remove it from the A list.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Assuming that the pardon expunges the original conviction then this is good news indeed. I just wish he had the courage to remove it from the A list.

Well, that would be Congress' call, therefore it is not going to happen this session.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Wow, Obama's second term might as well be called "Better late than never."

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean Renaud]

Just part of Obama's desperate attempt at re-building the Democrat voting base. Next will be new Justice Department directives to restore the right to vote for felons.

One can only hope and pray.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Just part of Obama's desperate attempt at re-building the Democrat voting base. Next will be new Justice Department directives to restore the right to vote for felons.

That would be a state-government call, more's the pity.

 

[dan_c00000]

That would be a state-government call, more's the pity.

States like Florida would just purge rolls illegally, again.

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

Obama thinks he runs the whole country.

No more so than any other POTUS thought so.

 

[badbabysitter]

Obama thinks he runs the whole country.

funny how Heads of State around the world think that

 

[Sean Renaud]

Obama thinks he runs the whole country.

He sure as fuck doesn't act like it. He acts like a little bitch who needs permission to do anything.

 

[Bry1313]

He sure as fuck doesn't act like it. He acts like a little bitch who needs permission to do anything.

Can RWCJ get their definition of Brobama consistent please? Either he is an ineffectual mamby pamby, or he is a dangerous authoritarian. Either one will work.

 

[Que]

He sure as fuck doesn't act like it. He acts like a little bitch who needs permission to do anything.

He does need permission to do anything.

The Presidential Office is weak by design in our governing documents. A monarchy was considered and rejected in the deliberative process.

The executive branch is so named because it's only functions are to issue pardons at his sole discretion as outlined above, act as a check on the legislative branch wielding veto power and to "faithfully execute the law" that is created by the legislative branch.

He is not the first president to violate the oath of office in that way. Interesting his (and, I suspect your) vigorous (and correct) condemnation of GW's routine lawlessness with signing statements, selective enforcement, and "executive orders", while wishing for a monarchy when a guy with your bent is in office.

funny how Heads of State around the world think that

SOME Heads of State ARE Kings (or Queens), Supreme Rulers, High Potentates, and the like. Perhaps you have heard that your neighbors to the South have what is known as the Rule of Law, with Founding Documents, outlining a system of representative governance intended to be in the form of a democratic Republic with an emphasis on local governance whenever possible?

 

[Sean Renaud]

Nope, I never called out GW on using his power effectively. That's what a good executive does.

He's not just a check on the Legislative Branch, he's the leader and has quite a bit of power as well he's supposed to. In theory we have three "equal" branches of government.

I call Obama out constantly for not being half the leader he could and should be. It's something I constantly praise Republicans for and with Democrats had that kind of strength and testicular fortitude.

Edit:And that local government shit needs to end. It's not 1775 any longer and that shit is utterly retarded in the modern world.

 

[Que]

Nope, I never called out GW on using his power effectively. That's what a good executive does.

He's not just a check on the Legislative Branch, he's the leader and has quite a bit of power as well he's supposed to. In theory we have three "equal" branches of government.

I call Obama out constantly for not being half the leader he could and should be. It's something I constantly praise Republicans for and with Democrats had that kind of strength and testicular fortitude.

Edit:And that local government shit needs to end. It's not 1775 any longer and that shit is utterly retarded in the modern world.

Thats why those morons in 1775 wrote it all down in black letter law complete with a handy amendment process...You want flyoverstates determining how YOU live?

Three equal branches is a modern construct. Mostly perpetuated by the weakest of the three the judiciary in an effort to wrest power for itself. (It has done a VERY effective job of that)

The legislative is clearly the most powerful as designed...it can remove anyone in the other two. As a practical matter they never do, but it was assumed that they would and frequently.

Even in our Bicameral legislature, the House is SUPPOSED to be controlling. It was by design as it retains SOLE power over the purse as Nixon found out. Without money, you can't even turn the lights on at 1600 Pennsylvania or by a single ream of paper for SCOTUS. The Senate was supposed to be the closest we had to a council of wise elders (Harry Reid, Really?!??) as written, they were subject to immediate recall at ANY time for ANY reason by the legislature of their home State. They were supposed to be there to look after their State legislatures interest, the House of Representatives to look after the People's interest at large.

Wanting a house of lords and a "consensus built" Prime Minister and ultimately a Monarch's wise and beneficent rule, doesn't make it so. The Tories lost.

Our documents INTENDED to make a weak Federal Government. They succeeded. The reason that it isn't working is because the Federal Government is masquerading as a National Government without the powers and mechanisms necessary to effect that sort of rule. So instead, politicians bribe each other with goodies from the overdrawn purse to get each-other to look the other way as they rape and pillage the country.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Short version. I don't think they really meant for the Congress to have the power you claim they did, they don't use the power because it's an imaginary power. The fly over states do determine how I live to a frightening degree considering that they should just be happy we put up with them.

Anyway feel free to think what you want this isn't an argument I'm in the mood for.

I do agree however that a large part of our problems stem from having a government that is too weak to properly function in the modern world.

 

[Joeybagadonuts]

From Yahoo News:

This is a good first step but now he needs to verbalize that the war on drugs has been a epic failure. Then he needs to act to divert money from the Byrne Program to securing the US borders to prevent foreign or domestic terrorists from smuggling WMDs into the country.

 

[Que]

Short version. I don't think they really meant for the Congress to have the power you claim they did, they don't use the power because it's an imaginary power. The fly over states do determine how I live to a frightening degree considering that they should just be happy we put up with them.

Anyway feel free to think what you want this isn't an argument I'm in the mood for.

I do agree however that a large part of our problems stem from having a government that is too weak to properly function in the modern world.

It isn't my claim...it is what the plain, easily understood language of the documents state explicitly. This isn't some implicit understanding...It, for example, gives direction on removal from office.. It says outright that all bills involving revenues and expenditures MUST originate in the house....like that.

I don't really require permission to "think what I want" or in this case be versed in what it actually says.

It sounds more like it is not an argument you are prepared for. Which is not an indictment. Some of it is arcane- only in the sense it isn't taught in "Civics" classes- but if you care to read the actual document, you clearly would have no problem following their actual direction and not that it matters, divining their intentions.

As you have expressed, you don't much care for the shreds of that document that still pester those that want strong national control. It's a reasonable position. Reasonable men at the inception believed as you do about the benefits of a strong central government.

They lost that battle, but have stealthily won most of them since through a process of erosion bolstered by dis-information.

I'd respect the position more though if those espousing it had simply pursued their aims through open debate and the amendment process.

 

[KingOrfeo]

He does need permission to do anything.

The Presidential Office is weak by design in our governing documents. A monarchy was considered and rejected in the deliberative process.

The executive branch is so named because it's only functions are to issue pardons at his sole discretion as outlined above, act as a check on the legislative branch wielding veto power and to "faithfully execute the law" that is created by the legislative branch.

He is not the first president to violate the oath of office in that way.

Constitutional law is not your strong suit.

 

[Que]

Constitutional law is not your strong suit.

I do like a seersucker.

You are aware that every word of black letter law, and every scintilla of case law that might have concerns referenced in constitution happened AFTER the period we are discussing?

Before there was a single 'Constitutional Law Professor?"

You may not agree with the aims of those that did prevail at the Convention, but a veiled reference to those that contorted the aims since doesn't really add anything to the discourse.

Rhetorical argument is not your old bailey-wick. Snark doesn't constitute actual debate.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I do like a seersucker.

I've only ever seen one lawyer wear one IRL.

You are aware that every word of black letter law, and every scintilla of case law that might have concerns referenced in constitution happened AFTER the period we are discussing?

Before there was a single 'Constitutional Law Professor?"

Acknowledged, and dismissed as irrelevant. You are not equally qualified with a con-law prof, or with any lawyer, to interpret the intent of the FFs or anything about the Constitution. And your reading of the president's constitutional role is one no lawyer outside the Federalist Society would back you up on, and probably not even within it.

 

[Que]

I've only ever seen one lawyer wear one IRL.



Acknowledged, and dismissed as irrelevant. You are not equally qualified with a con-law prof, or with any lawyer, to interpret the intent of the FFs or anything about the Constitution. And your reading of the president's constitutional role is one no lawyer outside the Federalist Society would back you up on, and probably not even within it.

Still can not ,as per usual, articulate YOUR position.

Why don't you explain to me what powers that the constitution explicitly grants to the president?

Or do you need to consult with your brain-trust of "Constitutional Scholars?"

Hint: You COULD cut and paste the actual words of the document then set out to explain how it doesn't at all mean what it says.

Pontificate is my word of the day...that is all you ever do..."dismiss" others opinions as if there had been an actual finding of fact.

Again, snark does not constitute debate...

Telling me how many people you believe would disagree with me without being able to even borrow their words (absent as per usual your own) is not debate...

It is bluster...
...and you suck at that.

I always feel a little silly when I click "show post" to figure out the context of one of your quoted posts in search of some meaning in what you are babbling about.

 

[Sean Renaud]

You haven't articulated your point either, because you can't because you don't have one, not a real one at any rate. You keep claiming that Constutional Lawyers cannot be called up because. . .they weren't the authors and the efforts of educated men trained specifically to learn the meaning put in place by the Founding Fathers cannot be trusted but you can.

I could post the entire Constitution along with the actions taken by George Washington who was a Founding Father, if he thought the President had the power to make Executive Orders clearly that was the way enough Founding Fathers felt that he didn't get called on it.

Even if you were right we've been interpreting the Constution how we please for most of the last two hundred years, the amendment process doesn't work in practice and it's outdated in so many ways it's not even funny.