House bill would deny funds for imprisonment of Ramos and Compean
posted at 10:03 pm on October 9, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
It takes a lot to get me to agree with Patches Kennedy but not only is this of dubious constitutionality, it’s an insane precedent to set when we’re looking at an expanded Democratic majority in Congress next year. Think of it as a reverse bill of attainder: instead of bypassing the jury system to have someone locked up, they’re going to bypass it to have someone freed.
I can’t wait to see what Reid and Pelosi will do with a legislative pardon power.
Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas) introduced the amendment, which passed the House on a voice vote in July. A similar measure is not included in the version of the appropriations bill that the Senate began debating last week…
“This issue ought to be resolved in the courts surely, or if the President of the United States wanted to take it up, he has the power that we don’t have, to my knowledge,” [Rep. Alan] Mollohan [(D-W.Va.)] said on the House floor in objecting to Poe’s amendment.
“He has the pardoning power. We don’t have that here, but in effect, we are attempting to act as if we did here with these two amendments,” he added.
Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.), also spoke on the House floor in opposition to the amendment, saying that if Congress “were to suspend the process every time we thought one case was more popular than the other, it would just upend the idea of justice as we know it in this country, because I think all of us could come here to the floor and tell of a unique story where someone was wronged by the system of justice in this country.”
Poe told Cybercast News Service Monday that the measure is “unique” but defended it as constitutional and within congressional “power of the purse” to mandate how taxpayer money is spent.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Yep the precedent it would set would be insane and dangerous.
The House has been trying that for a while when it comes to Iraq.
“If we don’t have the power to un-wage war then we will just un-fund it.”
I don’t think that is what the framers intended back in the day.
F15Mech on October 9, 2007 at 10:09 PM
actually it probably is. They were given the power of the purse for that reason. It’s never actually used though because it’s political suicide.
crr6 on October 9, 2007 at 10:12 PM
There’s no question Congress has the power to defund the war. The war power resides with Congress, as does the power to raise armies. War is their business. This is a matter of criminal justice, which is staked to an entirely different branch constitutionally.
Allahpundit on October 9, 2007 at 10:13 PM
For starters, we can say goodby to Gitmo.
logis on October 9, 2007 at 10:15 PM
Separation of Powers ? We don’t need no stinking Separation of Powers…
In the Realm of Bad Ideas, this one is colossal…
elgeneralisimo on October 9, 2007 at 10:17 PM
Hm…Congress might be able to pass such an amendment in within a budget bill. Then President could veto it. That’s par for the course.
btw ccr6 I’m with F15Mech on intent. The state were in today has been nuanced over the years.
Spirit of 1776 on October 9, 2007 at 10:21 PM
I have to agree. Horrible precedent to set. Bush should just grow the Malkins and issue a pardon. If he can issue a pardon for Libby (only serve 2 1/2 years) and Clinton can pardon Marc Rich, he can pardon two border patrol agents.
amerpundit on October 9, 2007 at 10:25 PM
Yeah, this is the wrong track to take. Bush just needs to let the guys out on his own.
SoulGlo on October 9, 2007 at 10:29 PM
I don’t think he’s serious (I hope he’s not serious), I think he’s just trying to keep this case in the public eye (I hope he’s just trying to keep this case in the public eye) and make a name for himself in the process (I wish he wouldn’t try to make a name for himself period — especially with a tactic this stupid).
srhoades on October 9, 2007 at 10:29 PM
F15Mech on October 9, 2007 at 10:31 PM
As Spirit said they could, since they do have the purse, however once a president, makes war and the congress approves the funding (aka agrees with the president) I don’t think it was the intent of the framers to say congress can stop it after that point just because. That power should come from the president. If you want a war stopped/de-funded then elect a new president.
Course I was just a baby back then so I may have missed something.
F15Mech on October 9, 2007 at 10:32 PM
Congress imposes riders on appropriations all the time. There was one in the Reagan administration that prohibited the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division from, if memory serves, making any argument in court in favor of the rule of reason in vertical price fixing cases. I may have the details wrong, but it was similar to that.
I’m not saying this new rider is a good idea. It certainly is not. I’m just saying it’s hardly unprecedented.
It’s also not a pardon, because it says nothing about the convictions, just about the punishment. Still a lousy idea.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on October 9, 2007 at 10:45 PM
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on October 9, 2007 at 10:45 PM
It’s a de facto commutation of the sentence.
DaveS on October 9, 2007 at 10:49 PM
A silly move, but maybe it’ll force George to do the right thing.
profitsbeard on October 9, 2007 at 10:57 PM
Well, if Jorge Bush would do the right thing, we wouldn’t have this “silliness”, would we? Ted Poe is a judge of 26 years. If there’s anything he knows, it’s the law. I highly doubt he’s unaware of what he’s doing.
Redhead Infidel on October 9, 2007 at 11:06 PM
Redhead Infidel-
Agreed.
But better late than not.
profitsbeard on October 9, 2007 at 11:45 PM
Its screaming for trouble and its not in the Constitution because the idea of more then one person giving out total pardons like that is going to be a disaster. Hell forget Reid and Pelosi, what would a more nutso Congressman/Senator do with this? Can you imagine Kucinich, Sanders, Kerry, Sheila Jackson Lee, Charlie Rangel and others with this authority?
Defector01 on October 9, 2007 at 11:50 PM
I don’t have much to add other than I agree that this is a recipe for disaster if passed, the consequences could be horrible.
Bad Candy on October 10, 2007 at 12:25 AM
First of all, since when have the Democrats ever given a rat’s ass about what the Constitution says?
More to the point there has been no “declaration of war” – as specified in the Constitution – since World War 2. What is in place now is called the “Iraq War Resolution.” Of course Congress could rescind that, and/or issue a new resolution anytime it wants.
However that is NOT what the Democrats in Congress want, no matter what they tell their moonbat minions. They know that getting blamed for a return to genocide, totalitarianism and expanded base of operations for our enemies would be political suicide with the 95% of the electorate who don’t worship Che Rivera as a god.
If the Democrats could somehow force BUSH to do their dirty work and surrender to the terrorists, the Democrats would be tickled pink. But that’s the one issue Bush will never cave on. So failing that, all the Congressional Democrats want to do is muck up the waters and make Bush’s job as difficult as possible. They are fully invested in America’s defeat, but they know full well they’ll be kicked out of office if they got the blood on their own hands.
logis on October 10, 2007 at 12:55 AM
This is a bad idea, and it’s a bad idea for Senor Boosh to keep delaying that Executive Order. And shame on him for not releasing them!
SouthernGent on October 10, 2007 at 12:57 AM
Good point, Democrats don’t care about such nonsense.
You say tomato I say tomatoe…
Since no Democrat can call a spade a spade why should I?
Ask the USAF members/ask the US population if it is a war or some sort of “conflict”
Last I checked the MSM calls it a War not a conflict.
I know that we never officially declared war, the simple fact is that we should be/are fighting it like one.
F15Mech on October 10, 2007 at 2:17 AM
DaveS on October 9, 2007 at 10:49 PM
Correct. I agree with you that it’s a de facto commutation of the sentence, but people were talking about a legislative pardon, which this isn’t, because the conviction would stand.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on October 10, 2007 at 7:28 AM
Congress controls the money. They can fund or not fund whatever they choose. And if you don’t think Congress has the power to effectively undo the courts decision by refusing funds, then you have never read the Constitution. Congress can refuse to fund ANYTHING they don’t agree with(period). Furthermore…Congress actually has the power to deny the courts jurisdiction over a given subject.
There was talk in Congress of doing exactly that after the nonsense decision to take “God” out of the pledge of allegiance. Congress never did it, but the court has seemed to back off. Congress can restricts the courts and they can deny money to anyone for anything… that’s the fact. They have absolute power of the purse.
If Congress has the power to deny funding to our troops in the field, in the middle of a war… which they do…. then they certainly have the power to deny funds to the Executive branch to imprison these two border agents. There is absolutely no question… congress can do that !! Read your Constitution for heaven sake !!
Once again Rep. Tom Tancredo is correct and the dirtball Democrat: i.e. Rep. Patrick Kennedy, is wrong !
Maxx on October 10, 2007 at 11:15 AM
The real and simple issue here is: US law enforcement is being run by the Mexi-(yes-I)-can! ‘government’ and the World Court.
Our gov’t defends a scumbag drug dealer and imprisons 2 border patrol agents trying to do their jobs in this ass-backwards, corrupt system in which, (for instance), ex-Presidente Fox is telling us that it is racist to build a fence for national security.
This reminds me of the old story of the Mexican, Medellin, a rapist, torturer, and murderer of 2 teen girls made new by the Bush administration calling for a hearing because Mexico doesn’t ‘believe in’ the death penalty and the World Court wants to call the shots in our country.
The precedent is being created now–in plain sight!–for the US to become just another territory in North America. Our forefathers are spinning in their graves while AP and See-Dub split hairs and call us wild-eyed conspiracy theorists.
Christine on October 10, 2007 at 1:03 PM
Yep… that sums it up nicely.
Maxx on October 10, 2007 at 1:15 PM
I read every word of the trial transcripts; Compean and Ramos were guilty as hell.
Border Patrol agents’ jobs don’t include serving as judge, jury and executioner of people they suspect might be illegal aliens and/or drug dealers, nor does it include corruptly destroying and covering-up evidence of their own wrong-doing after the fact.
If the shoe fits…
LagunaDave on October 10, 2007 at 1:57 PM
Screw the executive branch … and the Legislature …. to fund or not to fund … what a bunch of aristocratic crap.
Let’s get some folks together and get them (Ramos / Compean) out.
Thought you read the transcript there Laguna Dave … I never read about a body assuming room temperature … please cite the reference …
AZ_Redneck on October 10, 2007 at 10:11 PM
Article 2: Section 2: Clause 1
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
It doesn’t get any plainer or simpler than that.
elgeneralisimo on October 10, 2007 at 10:35 PM
Comment pages: