Pages: 1
Pretty much.Turquoise wrote:
It's basically a blatant avenue for corruption.
wtfIn 1983, financier Rich was indicted for evading more than $48 million in taxes, and charged with 51 counts of tax fraud, as well as running illegal oil deals with Iran during the 1979-1980 hostage crisis. During his last week in office, President Bill Clinton pardoned Rich, who had fled the U.S. during his prosecution and was residing in Switzerland. Clinton's eleventh-hour move, along with pardons of his half-brother, Roger, and former business partner Susan McDougal, outraged Republicans and Democrats alike. The Rich pardon sparked an investigation into whether it was bought by the hefty donations Rich's ex-wife, Denise, had given to the Clintons and the Democrats. In the end, investigators did not find enough evidence to indict Clinton.
WTF? Why would he do that?Kmarion wrote:
Johnson pardoned the citizens of the confederate states.. thank god. Carter pardoned all those Vietnam draft dodgers, shame. Steinbrenner was pardoned by Reagan (for improper campaign donations), shame.
One of the best.wtfIn 1983, financier Rich was indicted for evading more than $48 million in taxes, and charged with 51 counts of tax fraud, as well as running illegal oil deals with Iran during the 1979-1980 hostage crisis. During his last week in office, President Bill Clinton pardoned Rich, who had fled the U.S. during his prosecution and was residing in Switzerland. Clinton's eleventh-hour move, along with pardons of his half-brother, Roger, and former business partner Susan McDougal, outraged Republicans and Democrats alike. The Rich pardon sparked an investigation into whether it was bought by the hefty donations Rich's ex-wife, Denise, had given to the Clintons and the Democrats. In the end, investigators did not find enough evidence to indict Clinton.
Forgot about that, i think that's one of the few things she can actually doTheAussieReaper wrote:
They have the power because your Constitutional rights were based of the Roman system as a template. The last court of appeal would be Caesar, although the office of Pro-Consul often included the sitting as Judge during some time of the mans rise through the ranks. It was far more practical at that time, because the cases that the Emperor saw weren't anything near the amount that a current President could have to deal with.
I think it's unjustified myself. The Executive branch shouldn't meet the Judicial in this way, or at all unless it's in forming the laws rather than applying them.
The British system currently has the Queen as the final Court of Appeal, as does Australia but only after it's gone through the High Court of Australia can it make it to her. After that I don't know how she is meant to deal with a case.
Its not the queen thats the final court of appeal, its the queens council. This is generally made up of very high status lords e.g. the lord chief justice, and the QC's (Queens councilors, very high ranking barristers). The queen has nothing to do with the judicial system any more.TheAussieReaper wrote:
They have the power because your Constitutional rights were based of the Roman system as a template. The last court of appeal would be Caesar, although the office of Pro-Consul often included the sitting as Judge during some time of the mans rise through the ranks. It was far more practical at that time, because the cases that the Emperor saw weren't anything near the amount that a current President could have to deal with.
I think it's unjustified myself. The Executive branch shouldn't meet the Judicial in this way, or at all unless it's in forming the laws rather than applying them.
The British system currently has the Queen as the final Court of Appeal, as does Australia but only after it's gone through the High Court of Australia can it make it to her. After that I don't know how she is meant to deal with a case.
Pages: 1
