A pardon requires 1. a [confession or finding of guilt], and 2. a conviction. I would say that without these conditions precedent, the regent-executive has no standing to issue a pardon. Obviously no one agrees with me, and is instead in favor of a broad pardon power, one that short-circuits the entire judicial process of fact-finding, trial by jury in open court, and the rule of law.
The other thing I want to say is that pardoning the man who said, "You don't need a mask," and, "Some will fall by the wayside," is a diabolical act of pure evil.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from craig_groeschel@zeroes.ca
@craig_groeschel Supreme Court ruled in 1915 that a Pardon is an admission of guilt.
So, legally speaking... :bobross:
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from subjacentish@zeroes.ca
@subjacentish
Interesting. They said, in dicta, that acceptance of a pardon was a confession of guilt. Later cases have questioned this.
Good to see that Burdick's arguments were similar to mine. Again, though, not part of the holding.
It's a good opinion.
236 U.S. 79 (1915)
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep236/usrep236079/usrep236079.pdf
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from craig_groeschel@zeroes.ca
@craig_groeschel It's the only common sense position to take imo.
How can you be pardoned for something you aren't convicted or charged w/?
A pardon w/ no crime is like a get-out-jail free card, I guess?
Not a great precedent in any sense. Biden's admin has been a total shitshow.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from subjacentish@zeroes.ca This content has been proxied by September (3851b).Proxy Information
text/gemini