Thursday, August 31, 2017
Pardon me?
Please read the attached NYT article on President Trump's Pardon of controversial former Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio and reflect on the constitutional implications. What would the founding fathers say about his use of this presidential power and their intent from the Constitutional Convention?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I believe that this presidential power was never expected to be used against another form of government. When the founding fathers decided to include the presidential pardon as one of the enumerated powers, I expect that they did not believe it would be used against the judiciary branch. Even though the president is given the power to pardon anybody, pardoning Arpaio gives the message that the President has the final word rather than the judicial branch. The three branches of government were not meant to overlap in order to keep the system of checks and balances in place, but oftentimes they do overlap. I believe that the founding fathers should have made more specific guidelines and powers for the presidential pardon, but since they did not outline the specifics, President Trump did not overuse his power. In the future, I strongly believe Congress should address this power and detail the specific scenarios the President is not allowed to use it.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the founding fathers would be okay with this use of the presidential pardon to an extent. They would be okay with it because it is constitutional for him to do so. The founding fathers gave the president the power to pardon for the purpose of him to be able to check the Supreme Court's power. President Trump by no means violated any laws or rules related to pardoning. However, the founding fathers would be upset at the fact that the president is not really enforcing the laws that Arpaio broke.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion the founding fathers would be okay with it from the stand point that it his right, but morally they would not be okay with it. Because Trump did this so early, it might have the effect on people in office. People can get away with anything as long as they are on good terms with Trump. It sends the message that Arpaio was not in the wrong, but really he is. Racial profiling is against the law. In the end though Trump did not break the law. He just used the power that he was given.
ReplyDeleteThough this act of pardon is slightly controversial, I believe the founding fathers would still be okay with Trump's pardon of Arapaio. I believe this is so because it is the President's given right to pardon who he sees fit, as it his right to do so. It was likely not the Constitutional Convention's intent to allow for a president to pardon someone who was in trouble with another branch of government. This is not a check or balance; this is going against the judicial opinion. Pardoning Arapaio, which was controversial enough considering he broke the law profusely, put Trump above the judicial branch, which is not the case. All in all, Trump broke no law or boundary.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the founding fathers would not be upset with Trump on a political stand point, but morally Trump's decision to pardon Arpaio is against social standards. Arpaio was accused of racial profiling people which is against the constitution. The Supreme court found him guilty; however, Trump decided to pardon him. Arpaio did not only violate a law but he violated the Constitution. Some people find this offense should be free of pardons because it violates the very idea of what our nation was founded after. Because this power is the only unchecked executive power, then I believe that the founding fathers would agree with Trump's right to pardon people but on a different cause.
ReplyDeleteWhile I believe the founding fathers would not necessarily condemn Trump for using his power to pardon that they themselves allowed for the president to have, I do feel they'd disagree with his use of it. I feel the founding fathers intended the presidential pardon to be in situations such as when JFK pardoned MLK. Trump instead is pardoning someone who was found guilty by the supreme court for racial profiling. The founding fathers would have wanted the president to uphold the law in its rightful use in this situation as it is duty to do so. While the founding fathers would not dispute the president's right to pardon, I'm sure many of them would be disappointed with this use.
ReplyDeleteThe founding fathers established the president's guideline's to have an impressive amount of ambiguity, but also do state powerful capabilities. President Trump does have the presidential power to pardon those of his choosing. The founding fathers would believe President Trump executed his power to pardon properly, but I think that they would not necessarily agree with his decision of who he pardoned. Not only would they not agree in him choosing Arpaio, but also Trump's timing with it. Majority of presidents will wait until the end of their term to announce a pardon and it especially unique that President Trump chose such a controversial pardon so early in his term.
ReplyDeleteEverything President Trump did here was legal with respect to the Constitution. Thus we can only assume that the Founding Fathers would have nothing to say regarding the legality of his actions. However, they might have an issue with the morality of how he used this privilege.
ReplyDeleteThe president utilized his constitution-given powers to pardon this man. The founding fathers might have an issue regarding the constitutionality of the crime which received the pardon, given border politics were practically nonexistent at that time.
ReplyDeleteAlthough everything in this situation in regards to the Constitution is legal, the Founding Fathers still might find fault in Trump's decision. I believe they may see Trump's actions as and abuse of power which is what they were vehemently against. The power of his pardon was legal, but the way that it was executed is extremely controversial. By allowing Arpaio to be pardoned without even having a trial, while legal, can be easily seen as condoning his actions when in truth he was wrong.
ReplyDeleteThe action that Donald Trump took in pardoning Joe Arpaio was not illegal, but I believe that the founding fathers would be disappointed in his decision. When constructing the law of the land, the founding fathers definitely intended for the President to have some power on important matters in order to maintain checks and balances with other respective branches of the government. Although, I do not think that the founding fathers were aware of the corruption that could come with giving one person such an absolute power since that power could be wielded wrongfully at times on a moral standpoint.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the founding fathers would be disgusted by the President's blatant abuse of power and the type of people that he is pardoning. Joe Arpaio's treatment of Hispanics in Arizona has been compared to Bull Connor's treatment of African-American's in Alabama. The very notion of Trump's pardoning Arpaio is disgusting. The Founding Fathers would most likely have a very different idea of Trump's use of his presidential power from what they outlined in the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteThe founding fathers would approve of Trump's actions, even if others do not believe. They expressed that President has the power to pardon those he deems worthy. The President has a very a broad power range that can be flexible. Although Joe's actions may seem controversial, Trump is allowed to pardon those
ReplyDeleteThe founding fathers would agree that Trump has the power to pardon, but the fact that he pardoned Joe Apardio for such a blatant offense would probably cause them to disagree over Trump's choice. Trump is within his rights to pardon anyone he deems worthy, but I believe the founding fathers would disapprove of his scale of worthiness. I do not think that this was what they intended when they granted the president the power to pardon in the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteThe founding fathers would approve of Trump's action, but I am not sure they would morally approve of it. Apardio committed heinous crimes and should've been punished for his actions. Presidential pardoning is a good tool that the president has in his arsenal, but to use it in this light, it seems shameful. The Founding fathers would not approve of this pardon
ReplyDeleteI believe the founding fathers would be proud yet disappointed in Trump. I think they would definitely approve of him using his power as president. On the other side, I believe they would be quite upset that he pardoned someone who was limiting people's freedom.
ReplyDeleteI believe the Founding Fathers would have had no problem with President Donald Trump pardoning someone, but I think they would have an issue of who he did it too. Apardio deserves a punishment for the crimes he committed. The president does have the right to pardon whoever he thinks is worthy, but in this case, I think the Founding Fathers would be ashamed of how Donald Trump used this Constitutional power for someone that does not deserve it. However, Trump did not break any law so he did not do anything necessarily wrong.
ReplyDeleteI believe Presidents Trump's pardon is constitutional, but the decision is immoral. Why would Donald Trump pardon a person who was unlawfully arresting people on the basis of their skin color. I do not believe the Founding Fathers would approve because Trump is trying to stop immigration. Immigration is what built this country. The Founding Fathers would be ashamed of the misuse of power that trump is using just for party politics.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of constitutionality, President Trumps pardon is perfectly lawful. From a moral standpoint, it is not so glamorous. As many of the founding fathers were slave owners themselves, it is hard to assume what their stance would be on this particular pardon due to the fact that it involves race. However, they would almost certainly disagree with the abuse of power involved with a president pardoning someone for reasons that do not necessarily regard the office directly.
ReplyDeleteMany people in this country have fallen into the habit of placing the constitution over basic morals. Yes, the constitution is the crucial backbone of this country, but to what extent can we applaud ourselves for said document when we use it as a way to shield our eyes from something that is clearly lacking moral fiber? I believe that Donald Trump’s decision to pardon Joe Arpaio, while constitutional, would cause our founding fathers to shake their heads in shame. The constitution was not intended to be used as a way to support the oppression of people, rather they are individuals or a group. By using his constitutional power to pardon Joe Arpaio, Donald Trump not only showed his solidarity with Mr. Arpaio, but also gave a silent nod of approval to the practices he implicated while in his position to humiliate, degrade, and target Hispanics. Constitutional rights should never trump human rights.
ReplyDeletePresident Trump's decision to pardon Arpaio is legal according to the definition of his pardoning power. That being said the founding fathers may have disagreed with him doing so, but they would understand that through their creation (the Constitution) he has not broken the law. The odd part about this pardon is 1) the timing and 2) the public opinion that goes along with it. the timing could be considered awkward because former presidents have usually made controversial pardons on their way out of office in an attempt to quell public backlash. To go along with this, Trump's decision to pardon so early in his Presidency can influence the public opinion since voters who may not have liked this could express how they feel in the next election. Also although they can pardon anyone in theory besides himself, presidents should be careful with who they decide to pardon. For example if a president decided to pardon a serial killer who murdered 50 people and was serving 3 life sentences, it would look as though the president condoned that sort of behavior. This is the same situation. By pardoning him, it looks like Trump is in favor of the illegal and immoral acts Arpaio committed, which does not look too good for him in the eyes of the American people.
ReplyDeleteTrump's pardoning, according to definition of his pardoning power, is legal. However, the decision is immoral in my opinion, and I do not think the founding fathers would approve of this pardon. This is controversial because many of the founding fathers were slave owners, so it would be hard to assume their stance on racial issues. Trump used his constitutional power to pardon someone who did not deserve to be pardoned. While immoral, he did not break any laws
ReplyDelete