politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Who says a specific group of people can't be, "All Americans?" There's nothing in the Constitution that provides limits on the pardon power. In theory, if they wanted to, a president could issue a pardon for every American for every violation of federal law ever committed.
Well, the constitution never explicitly gave the supreme court the power of judicial review, but they just grabbed that power and everyone in government just rolled with it.
Similarly, the supreme court could rule that if a pardon is "too broad" then its not valid. And then trump just take that ruling and say "hey look, the supreme court says the pardons are invalid, ARREST THE DEMS!"
Edit: And also, if Biden did that, he could inadvertently free people who are rightfully convicted of violent crimes. Think of all the mass shooters in prison right now. And also it wouldn't matter anyways. Being LGBT is still on the way of getting outlawed in the future. Political dissent can still be suppressed via a weaponized DoJ. Pardons don't apply to the future
Of course there could be rulings on anything. But you're inventing the "specificity" argument from whole cloth. Historically, there has never been any ruling establishing such limits on presidential pardons. And it's not even on the radar of potential rulings circulating in right-wing circles. There are a lot of dubious legal theories that right wingers have proposed, such as creative interpretations to get around birthright citizenship. But there aren't conservative legal scholars out there arguing that the pardoning power should be redefined.
The court could also just straight-up rule various demographic groups to be illegal and worthy of imprisonment without trial. There's really no point on worrying about purely hypothetical rulings that have no evidence that they are even being considered.
The is an invention entirely of your own creation.