184

tl;dr: Arpaio was sentenced for violating a court order, which ordered him to stop violating the law. In this case, a presidential pardon takes away any recourse the judiciary has, thus circumventing the separation of powers and thus the rule of law. Few people claim that the pardon was illegal. What people mean by "rule of law" in this case is ...


82

Generally speaking, anything that a member of Congress says during a speech or debate in Congress is protected by the U.S. Constitution from lawsuits and criminal prosecution. This immunity is covered in Article I, Section 6, and is known as the "Speech and Debate Clause". The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services,...


50

First, while nobody doubts that the act is lawful, the right to pardon is controversial by itself. It is a power by which the executive "breaks" the separation of powers and changes a decision coming from the judicial power. Doubly so if the reason for the pardon seems to be the self-interest of the person who issues the pardon, more than in the general ...


36

The constitution of the united states is the ultimate law of the land, not the presidency. Therefore there is no such office that is shielded from the law due to loyalty to the presidency. This is pretty similar to the Nuremberg trials, where a common defense was 'I was just following orders'. That didn't fly then and it wouldn't fly now. In fact, a ...


27

Yes. This article on the BBC from 2016 states that 13000 Arrest warrants are outstanding, on people who have jumped bail, or as in the words of the article Figures obtained by the BBC show more than 13,000 people are subject to outstanding arrest warrants in England, with the oldest dating back to 1980. The BBC asked for details of arrest warrants issued ...


23

The short answer is that no, you almost certainly cannot sue. This is for a large number of reasons. First, both the State and Federal governments have sovereign immunity, according to the Supreme Court. This says means that you cannot sue the government unless it has, in some statute, consented to the suit. Though the federal government did consent to some ...


16

Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads: Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. Everyone has the right to equal access to public service in his country. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall ...


14

After passing articles of impeachment the House of Representatives' role is not done. During the trial in the Senate the House collectively becomes "managers" of the trial and act as the plaintiff in a more traditional trial setting. After voting on the articles they are introduced in the Senate by the House of Representatives, not a Senator. ...


14

Upvote to Michael_B. I was going to say some similar things but I freely admit I didn't have all those citations handy. Kudos. But let me add one thing: Why the principle of not punishing congressmen and women for lying is a good idea: Suppose that there was some legal penalty for lying during a debate in Congress. Suppose a senator or representative could ...


13

As the linked question's cite of Federalist Paper #74 shows, the whole point of the pardon is to violate the separation of powers, to enable an additional check-and-balance. So the answer to your question is "yes". It does violate separation of powers. Separation of powers, like any other theoretical idea, is not absolute and has exceptions, blurry lines ...


9

The President is given more powers when a state of emergency is declared as described in this article by USA Today. President Obama has extended Bush's Proclamation 7463 for the 16th consecutive year, giving him broad powers over the organization of the military for at least another year. Among them: the ability to call up the national guard and deploy ...


9

The aim of the separation of powers is to prevent the situation wherein one person would have too much power over the others. So, he/she would have the right to make a law, execute it, and judge according to it. Since the right of Pardon doesn't give the head of state the ability to condemn anyone, only to release someone who has been condemned, it is not ...


9

Legal Authority The All Writs Act is part of the statutory authorization for the civil contempt power as is 28 U.S.C. § 1826 (regarding compelling testimony from recalcitrant witnesses) and governing enforcement of court orders in general. Criminal contempt proceedings are governed by 18 U.S.C. §§ 401-402. See, e.g., here. But, the civil contempt process ...


8

On "Last Week Tonight with John Oliver" on September 10, 2017, his main story was about Joe Arpaio. He mostly spoke about Arpaio's history, but it was of course bookended by discussion of Trump's pardon, since that prompted the piece in the first place. Near the end of the piece (about 13:20 in the above clip), he said that is why it's a slap in the face ...


8

There may be some reason to think that charges like this are unusual. David Mason, a former FEC commissioner, noted I don't know why or how his case even came to the prosecutor's attention, because in the world of campaign finance this is very small, and it's completely insignificant, So how, why this particular case came up and the prosecutor ...


8

Since this is a power of Congress, you need to be looking in Article I, rather than Article II. (That said, I would have thought it was about the President, too :)) The relevant pieces of the document are: The House has the power to bring articles of Impeachment (i.e. start the proceedings) The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and ...


8

Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in ...


7

Historically, such pardons were meant to generate goodwill of the governed, and popularize the ruler. There were two kinds of them: General pardons. They are simply a good-will gesture and to project a benevolent image. Political pardons. These were frequently tied to a recently-completed power/political struggle which caused a lot of opponents of the ...


7

Has the UK spent millions of pounds to track a fugitive other than Assange? Lets remind ourselves of the timeline August 2010 - Assange visits Sweden, two women report rape. After being questioned, Assange leaves Sweden. 20 November 2010 - Interpol issue a red notice for Assange's arrest. December 2010 - Assange granted bail by a UK court. 19 June 2012 - ...


7

Voter turnout in Venezuela's 1998 presidential election was 63%, which is mildly-moderately higher than the United States (50.3% in 2000, 55.7% in 2004, 58.2% in 2008, 54.9% in 2012, an estimated 55.5% in 2016). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez#1998_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections ...


6

While anything is possible, if the ruling party feels secure enough to pass such a blatantly corrupt law then the protest on its own will probably not deter them. While plotting on how to pass a law might be secret, at some point the law must go through Parliament and be put in the public record, no matter how low key they make it or what bill they ...


6

The Fundamental Duties were added in the 42nd Amendment (1976), which doesn't explain why they were added or why they weren't made legally binding: It is also proposed to specify the fundamental duties of the citizens and make special provisions for dealing with anti-national activities, whether by individuals or associations. Nor is there ...


5

According to various (somewhat inconsistent) sources, since the 1980s, there have been about one hundred people found guilty of a crime in relation with feminine genital mutilations in France, see 1 and 2. So not hundreds or thousands but more than single digits. More recently, most of the countries where these mutilations are most prevalent passed laws ...


5

The relevant House can make its own rules about the conduct of its members and the discipline it imposes on them. The House of Representatives has three levels of punishment: expulsion, censure, and reprimand. The Senate has just expulsion and censure. The closest historical example to the situation you describe would seem to be the reprimand of Rep. ...


5

First I would separate the issue of upgrade/modify/modernize its state laws from the others. Changing laws is mainly a political problem, not a technical one (there is a part of it that is technical, but you do not need many lawyers to solve that and the best experts are the local lawyers who know the local code system). Also, it is difficult to transfer ...


5

Clinton v Jones established that a sitting US President does not have immunity from civil law suits in a Federal court. However, the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution prohibits states from interfering with the Federal government's exercise of its constitutional powers. Under this power given to the Federal government, the executive branch can ...


4

As Gaurav mentioned, the Fundamental Duties were added as a part of the 42nd Amendment of the Indian Constitution (1976), which is often considered to be the most painful relic of the Emergency era. The amendment altered a large part of the Indian constitution, largely with a goal to curtail the separation of powers. It pulled powers away from the judicial ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible