There has long been talk about the abuse by U.S. Presidents of the power to pardon criminals. One of the reasons for allowing presidents such authority was for the sake of giving the president leverage in striking an end to hostilities and granting amnesty thereafter. You might think of it as enforced reconciliation or a psychological and legal tool for preventing or lessening the likelihood of endless cycles of retaliation and revenge regardless of what the final outcome of otherwise uninterrupted hostilities might have been. Another rationale given for the authority that is more directly applicable to current events is that the president will protect people required to do things to save the nation that under ordinary circumstances would be punishable. So we have people who have broken laws against domestic spying and international and domestic torture and fabricating evidence for war, etc., where the neoconservatives desire that others come around to their way of thinking that such illegal behavior has been justified and in fact that there really were no alternatives — a falsehood built on falsehoods.
Currently, there are people who are expressing concern that George W. Bush will issue blanket pardons before leaving office for everyone who broke the law while carrying out George's known policies and also those clandestine policies and practices that would see the light of day were thorough investigations conducted. (See: "Conservative Lawyers Urge Bush To Issue 'Pre-Emptive Pardons' To Officials Involved In Illegal Programs," by Ben. Think Progress. July 21, 2008.)
There are two observations concerning all of this I will make here now.
The first is that in order for George W. Bush's pardons to stick, he must be the legal president of the U.S. He is not and never has been. He obtained the office via fraudulent and illegal means. The U.S. Supreme Court rendered an illegal opinion. Justices that should have recused themselves did not. Justices were bribed. I'm speaking mainly about Antonin Scalia who was in the forefront of the drive in on the court deliberately to avoid reading the applicable law in the case of the vote count in Florida. Scalia was rewarded through his son.
When CBS Corporation announced that Florida had gone to Gore based upon exit-polling results, justice Sandra Day O'Connor blurted out, "That's just terrible." However, she didn't recuse herself when it came time to hand the presidency to Bush. She was too prejudice to make an impartial decision. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote to his fellow justices that if the recount were to be allowed to continue leading to Al Gore being declared the winner, it would "do irreparable harm to petitioner [George W. Bush]."
After the US Supreme Court's conservative justices teamed up to stop the Florida recount that was headed in Al Gore's favor, thereby giving the election to George W. Bush, Bush appointed justice Scalia's son and chief justice Rehnquist's daughter to positions in his administration. Now if the fruits of these people showed that they were above crass compensation for decisions rendered, it wouldn't be a problem; but, that's not the case. Their fruit is rotten.
The law firm that represented Bush in Florida had also hired Scalia's son. They call such deals "scratching each other's backs."
Sandra Day O'Connor voiced her opinion that it was terrible that Al Gore was winning the vote in Florida and was projected by the major news media as the winner of the national presidential election. She was not unbiased. She had a vested interest in the outcome. She had a clear conflict of interest, which she made known.
That's three of the justices who should have been impeached for their actions.
Furthermore, there was illegal voter caging and purging of the voter registration rolls that illegally prevented an estimated 20,000 Democrats (all Black; a civil-rights violation) from having their votes counted, which votes did seal the presidency for Al Gore in 2000.
The second observation is that since the system has been used to pass retroactive laws as in the case of the telecom immunity legislation, that same system can be used to reverse all pardons. A constitutional amendment removing the authority going back to the day Bush-43 took office would do it.
Those are mundane and secular methods. The mundane and secular go together as one. That one is not the only method of dealing with the situation. There is the ultramundane, which will prevail.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)