This weekend my column on the Trump pardon controversy ran in the Washington Post. (Notably, while the first title referenced a President pardoning himself, the later title referenced pardoning aides which was the thrust of the column). As I have stated in the press, I consider this one of the most difficult questions in the Constitution. I wrote that there is nothing in the Constitution that says that a president cannot self-pardon and that this was a very close and unresolved question. The same day, a column ran that said conclusively that the self-pardon are clearly and textually barred by the Constitution. That column was written by Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe, Minnesota Professor Richard Painter, and Brookings Institution fellow Norman Eisen. I must respectfully disagree despite my respect for the prior work of all three of these men. While I believe that it would have been better for the Framers to expressly bar self-pardons, they did not do so. What is left is a difficult interpretive question that is not answered by the arguments made in the column. Indeed, some of the arguments are challengeable on either a historical or legal basis. This is an issue that could easily go either way in the courts. In the meantime, President Trump this morning fueled greater speculation with a tweet referring to his “complete power to pardon.”
First, it is important to start with what virtually all constitutional scholars agree upon: a presidential self-pardon would be an ignoble act even if it is deemed constitutional. Moreover, it is also clear that courts would be reluctant to review such a decision since the Supreme Court has long viewed pardons are an unfettered and political question. However, it is possible that a federal prosecutor could seek to bring a charge and force a court to rule on a motion to quash an indictment based on a prior self-pardon. Absent such a criminal charge, a judicial review of the decision might be difficult. If so, Trump could pardon himself and others with a fair certainty that the issue would not be raised — or at least resolved — during his term.
My view is that the Constitution does not clearly limit the power of pardons beyond its use with regard to impeachment. That does not mean that there is not a good-faith interpretation of the text that would bar self-dealing. However, the text of the Constitution remains the most important determinant in such interpretations and we should not lightly read in exceptions from constitutional protections or powers.
Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, states the pardon power as allowing a president to “grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.” There is no language specifying who may or may not be the subject of a pardon. The President is simply given the power to pardon any federal crime.
The authors however insist that
“The Constitution specifically bars the president from using the pardon power to prevent his own impeachment and removal. It adds that any official removed through impeachment remains fully subject to criminal prosecution. That provision would make no sense if the president could pardon himself.”
The second point is equally dubious as support for a bar on self-pardons. The authors are referring to Article I, Section 3:
Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.
This provision refers to anyone who is impeached and says that the impeachment does not alter their status with regard to any possible prosecution. Thus, presumably under this same argument, a president’s pardoning of any federal official or judge would “make no sense” since they are all supposed to be able to be eligible for prosecution. The interpretation would not only insert a limitation on self-pardons but any pardons of government officials.
The fact is that the Constitution is silent on the issue — raising the propriety of reading into the language a limitation not in the text and not clearly mandated by the legislative history.
The records of the Constitutional Convention are relatively bare of discussion of the pardon authority, though some discussion did occur. One of the most intriguing was James Wilson’s respond to Edmund Randolph’s suggestion to bar presidential pardons in treason cases. Wilson opposed the proposal and noted that if the President “himself be a party to the guilt he can be impeached and prosecuted.” 2 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 626 (Max Farrand ed., 1937). That would obviously assume that either a president did not have the power to self-pardon or did not do so.
The authors then assert a couple of historical and policy arguments. They state, for example, that “[f]our days before Richard Nixon resigned, his own Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel opined no, citing “the fundamental rule that no one may be a judge in his own case.” However, there was actually a division of opinion among lawyers with some advising Nixon that he had such authority. Mary Lawton’s opinion is a brief and largely conclusory opinion on the issue. Nixon was given various options, including a self-pardon, covered in a memorandum by Nixon’s lawyer, J. Fred Buzhardt. Neither side could claim a dispositive source for their conclusions.
They also claim
“The Constitution’s pardon clause has its origins in the royal pardon granted by a sovereign to one of his or her subjects. We are aware of no precedent for a sovereign pardoning himself, then abdicating or being deposed but being immune from criminal process. If that were the rule, many a deposed king would have been spared instead of going to the chopping block.”
Again, this argument is rather underwhelming. The King of England was protected by an absolute rule of immunity: “the King can do no wrong.” There would be no need for a pardon of the King in a system where the King could not be charged for much of this history. Moreover, when Kings were deposed, it was not a matter of litigation but revolution. It would be rather precious for a deposed James I to claim that he could remain by pardoning himself after his overthrow. When a sovereign is facing the “chopping block” it is not over some element of the criminal code but claims of illegitimacy. Even Charles I executed for treason would not have been able to pardon his way out of his beheading by his irate protestant subjects.
Things get even more extenuated by the next example of historical subject for a ban on self-pardons:
“We know of not a single instance of a self-pardon having been recognized as legitimate. Even the pope does not pardon himself. On March 28, 2014, in St. Peter’s Basilica, Pope Francis publicly kneeled before a priest and confessed his sins for about three minutes.”
The comparison of a pardon with religious atonement is a bit too clever by half. The Pope was carrying out a sacrament that requires a priest.
Leviticus 19: 20-22: A man who committed adultery had to bring a guilt offering for himself to the door of the tent of meeting (holy place where the ark of the covenant, which contained God’s true presence was kept). But then it adds “And the priest shall make atonement for him …before the Lord for his sin…and the sin which he has committed shall be forgiven.”
Yes, it is true that atonement involves a second person but that is where the analogy ends. A pardon is actually not an atonement or even forgiveness. It is an act that bars punishment. It does not excuse the underlying crime.
The primary rationale for barring self-pardons is the problem of “self-dealing” and the long-standing rule that no one should be the judge of their own case. Once the earlier arguments are stripped away, that is the heart of the author’s claims to have a dispositive answer to the question. It is not a frivolous argument and one worth serious consideration.
“Self-pardon under this rubric is impossible. The foundational case in the Anglo-American legal tradition is Thomas Bonham v. College of Physicians, commonly known as Dr. Bonham’s Case. In 1610, the Court of Common Pleas determined that the College of Physicians could not act as a court and a litigant in the same case. The college’s royal charter had given it the authority to punish individuals who practiced without a license. However, the court held that it was impermissible for the college to receive a fine that it had the power to inflict: “One cannot be Judge and attorney for any of the parties.”
Of course a number of distinctions could be drawn. First, a president is not acting in a true judicial but rather a political capacity. His actions are extrajudicial. Second, there are a host of ways that presidents engage in self-dealing. Presidents have long engaged in nepotism, including both Presidents Trump and Clinton.
Third, the denial of the right of pardon to the president means that he is the only person who is not entitled to this protection since no one else is qualified to exercise the power. This raises, at least tangentially, the necessity doctrine where all of the judges who have jurisdiction are somehow disqualified from the case because they have an interest in the outcome. In such cases, the disqualification rule is set aside to avoid a denial of justice. Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245, 247– 48 (1920). A president could find himself the subject of an abusive investigation by opponents and consider a self-pardon just. Yet, he may not want to be forced to resign to benefit from this protection. A president could also find himself the subject of a campaign by a successor that pledges to charge him and others in his Administration. We have had such periods like the lethal fight between Federalists and Jeffersonians. I still believe that a self-pardon would be ignoble and wrong, but the law recognizes that disqualification rules are sometimes relaxed when the rule would exempt someone from a protection under the law.
Finally, and most importantly, the overwhelming opposition for self-dealing does not mean that we can simply graft it on to the language of the Constitution without an amendment. The Framers could have easily excluded presidents and did not. There are arguments in favor of extending the power to all citizens without exception. I would prefer a ban on self-pardons but I am skeptical of arguments that “principles of natural law” can be read into clear textual language to exclude individuals or classes of people from constitutional protections.
The clarity that the authors find Constitution is equaled by their clear feelings about this President.
“President Trump thinks he can do a lot of things just because he is president. He says that the president can act as if he has no conflicts of interest. He says that he can fire the FBI director for any reason he wants (and he admitted to the most outrageous of reasons in interviews and in discussion with the Russian ambassador). In one sense, Trump is right — he can do all of these things, although there will be legal repercussions if he does. Using official powers for corrupt purposes — such as impeding or obstructing an investigation — can constitute a crime.
But there is one thing we know that Trump cannot do — without being a first in all of human history. He cannot pardon himself.”
I certainly would not fault the authors for their feelings of clarity with regard to Trump but the suggestion of a clear exclusion of presidents from the benefits of the pardon clause is difficult to discern in its language or history.
In today’s TNYT Charlie Savage writes on the possibility of indicting a sitting president.
Charlie Savage is over their heads.
Whose heads?
over our heads? yep, that’s it. but still taking great delight as that “exalted paper of note” continues to fail.
Balderdash.
“Even Stevie Wonder can tell you that’s not Putin.”
“Okay, great job New York Times.”
Ce n’est pas Poutine
It’s TFNYT. Or, more correctly, the FNYT. C’mon now.
F for factual?
David Benson – F for F*cking.
How crude!
Can’t you do better than that?
David Benson – I grew up thinking Thatgoddamnroosevelt was one word, a former President of the United States. It wasn’t until 6th grade and we studied all the Presidents and that name did not appear in the list of Presidents that I realized my family (both sides) were referring to FDR.
It is a crude world out there. The Fu*king New York Times fits the acronym TFNYT perfectly.
I do not think the framers thought there would be a president who would consider pardoning himself. That is like judging yourself. I am not surprise that someone like Donald Trump would consider pardoning himself since, from reading, he does not believe he ever has to repent of wrong doings because he sees no wrong in what he does. The president has personality disorders and should not be allowed to run a country. Especially, one who has freedom like America. We have laws and people should abide by those laws. Trump thinks he is above the law and should be taken down.
“The president has personality disorders and should not be allowed to run a country”
That is your opinion. Many Americans thought that Obama should never be President, but he was. That is the nature of our country. We elect a President and live with him for four years. At that time we vote again.
“Trump thinks he is above the law and should be taken down.”
What has he done? Facts, not opinion.
Elsie, do you think the framers every thought the President would be investigated for winning an election?
“Everything which is not forbidden is allowed” is a constitutional principle of English law—an essential freedom of the ordinary citizen or subject. The converse principle—”everything which is not allowed is forbidden”—used to apply to public authorities, whose actions were limited to the powers explicitly granted to them by law.[1] The restrictions on local authorities were lifted by the Localism Act 2011 which granted a “general power of competence” to local authorities.
Wikipedia
Secession was “allowed” and legal making Abraham Lincoln a criminal and a traitor.
Thank you.
In 1789, there were no “citizens” in England under English Law, there were only “subjects.”
“Citizens” and “natural born citizens” were new forms codified by the Constitution and in the Law of Nations, 1758. Interestingly, the new legal text and reference of the era, the Law of Nations, which defined the phrase, “natural born citizen,” first used in the Jay/Washington letter of July, 1787 to raise the presidential requirement from “citizen” to “natural born citizen” to place a “strong check” against foreign allegiances by the commander-in-chief, required that “…the father be a citizen.” Obama will never be eligible because his father was a foreign citizen with foreign allegiances as an anti-colonialist, anti-American activist who was not an American citizen. The entire Obama term was unconstitutional and fraudulent requiring it to be fully expunged from the record.
Thanks again.
Isn’t the idea of stifling the long arm of a special prosecutor by promoting any finding of wrongdoing by blanketing the Russian issue with Pardons a wise idea given that the Special Prosecutor is charged with finding wrong doing. Its such a corrupt legal arm, I agree with cutting off its blood supply.
If true this isn’t a wrinkle it’s the grand canyon. And how deep is this canyon?
BREAKING: Russian Translator At Trump, Jr. Meeting Has DIRECT Ties To MUELLER, What The HELL?!?!
By Sean Brown Posted in News Politcs
Posted on July 17, 2017
As more is learned about the people in attendance when Donald Trump, Jr. met with a Russian attorney, it seems more evident that it was some sort of set up.
We previously reported that just days after meeting Trump, Jr., Natalia Veselnitskaya was in Washington, D.CV. sitting next the U.S. Ambassador to Russia during a meeting in the House. We also reported that the month prior to the meeting, emails were exchanged by people in Hillary Clinton’s campaign speaking about tying the Trump campaign to the Russians using Emrin Algarov, the Russian pop star who helped to initiate the meeting the following month.
Now, a bombshell report from True Pundit reveals that Veselnitskaya’s translator, Anatoli Samochornov, not only worked for Obama’s State Department, but has direct ties to Robert Mueller, the special counsel investigating alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.
This sounds like something straight out of a spy novel.
Check it out:
More….
https://politicalcult.com/breaking-russian-translator-trump-jr-meeting-direct-ties-mueller-hell/
LOCK HER UP
http://www.thedailybeast.com/hillary-clintons-team-lost-a-laptop-full-of-her-emails-in-the-actual-mail
Do you think you are Mikey Flynn?
Take note that we are discussing a pardon in advance for Trump who needs no pardon for he has done nothing wrong or at least nothing that has been shown to be wrong.
This is a diversion from real issues. A lot of people in the justice department including Comey should be charged. Hillary should be charged. Lois Lerner should be charged. Samantha Powers should be charged. Too much time has been expended trying to create fictional crimes and misdemeanors where none exist.
Yup, any former Democratic official, any former official we think might be a Democrat, and any former official we just don’t like — should all be charged.
” any former Democratic official”
Not at all. We have to limit the number or the jails would be full. Those mentioned above are good enough as they have left trails of guit or blood.
Chump started the conversation.
Did he? Do you have proof of that?
Of course not.
Read his tweets if you can
The tweets only state what he said, not what was said before. Do you understand that? Probably not.
Obongo, Hillary, Rice et al. are guilty of conspiracy, subversion and treason for abuse of the power of government against the people, “wiretapping,” and “unmasking” political opponents as election tampering and fraud, and conspiring to subvert the duly elected government through leaks and disinformation campaigns with Obongo “holdovers.”
There are no more serious crimes than these in the United States.
How about selling out your country’s interests to a foreign power? Or is that not a crime?
How about selling out your country’s interests to a foreign power?
Good question. What was the net tangible benefit for the US WRT to to the Uranium One deal with the Russians?
You beat me to it Olly. How come Jay S doesn’t know about the Uranium deal or all the other deals involving pay for play where money ended up in the Clinton Foundation or Bill Clinton’s pocket. There is documentation of Clinton approvals and money enterring the Clinton accounts. There seems to be a disconnect in Jay’s thinking, The Clinton’s have been dealing in foreign money with pay for play and never a word.
On the otherhand after it is said by Comey and other high ranking investigators that nothing was found on Trump and Jay believes it is a proven fact when nothing occurred.
That’s the fundamental problem the Left has trying to be taken seriously. They absolutely refuse to even recognize, let alone admit, the crimes they are moving hell and earth to find involving Trump are laying out for ALL to see involving Clinton and others on the Left.
The laughable part is they are skulking around with their hands over their own eyes, completely oblivious to the fact they aren’t fooling the American people. The election results prove this out.
Haha. Pravda Faux News in da howse.
This is to change the channel george
“Chattanooga Choo Choo” lyrics
Ray Charles Lyrics
“Chattanooga Choo Choo”
(originally by Glenn Miller)
Hey there, pal, whatcha say?
Step aside partner, it’s my day and my name’s Ray!
Bend an ear and listen to my version
(Of a really solid, Tennessee excursion)
Pardon me boys, is that the Chattanooga Choo Choo?
(Yes Yes) Track 29!
Boy you can give me a shine
(Can you afford to board, the Chattanooga Choo Choo?)
I’ve got my fare
And just a trifle to spare
You leave the Pennsylvania station ’bout a quarter to four
Read a magazine and then you’re in Baltimore
Dinner in the diner, nothing could be finer
(then to have your ham and eggs in Carolina)
When you hear the whistle blowing eight to the bar
Then you know that Tennessee is not very far
Shuffle all the coal in
Gotta keep it rollin’
(Whoo Whoo Chattanooga there you are)
There’s gonna be, a certain party at the station
Satin and Lace
I used to call funny face
She’s gonna cry
Until I tell her that I’ll never roam
(So Chattanooga Choo Choo)
Won’t you choo choo me home.
Get aboard…
All aboard…
Chattanooga choo choo
Wont you choo choo me home
Donald Trump: Pardon me.
Donald Trump: You’re pardoned!
As with so many other things involved with the Trump Presidency, It might be nice to establish for fact that the Trump legal team is indeed throwing these questions about self pardon around. The discussion in the abstract is fascinating, but in the context of Trump and the present inquiries that seem (at a minimum to have started out) so close to pure witch hunts, the discussion is prejudicial.
In a short 6 months time, Americans have to consider whether a sitting POTUS can pardon himself? Sad, very sad.
In a short 6 months time, Americans have to consider whether a sitting POTUS can pardon himself? Sad, very sad.
That’s okay FishWings. They’ve already considered whether the actions of a sitting POTUS, his administration and his party should be in a majority position. The clear answer to that is NO! We’ll be just fine.
If the framers truly intended that no person is above the law, then why is the President able to pardon anyone? Is this pardon talk regarding acts before his election? Is someone eligible to be President if their prior to office crimes have been pardoned?
This entire effort by the anti-Trump crowd is so typical of how they approach every perceived problem. They look at how they benefit first, be damned what they are doing to the country long term. If they somehow manage to remove Trump from office, not for anything he’s actually done in office, but for prior actions, then they will prove why Trump was elected in the first place. The folks that rejected Clinton and put Trump in office just went through what they perceive as 8 years of what the Left is claiming Trump should be removed from office for. The backlash against the Left for this hypocrisy will take multiple election cycles to overcome, if ever.
The best thing that could happen at this point to gut progressives and expose the deep state is to keep this thing going. Pence is the ace in the hole. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn he was selected specifically for that purpose.
MPP
My guess is the framers allowed the President to issue pardon for the same general reasons detectives are allowed to tactically not always enforce the law & judges can dismiss charges against the obviously guilty “in the interest of justice.” Executives, including the Chief Executive, sometimes need flexibility to be effective or to smooth out differences between the letter and spirit/intent of the law. I also doubt the framers, not even in their wildest imaginings, had any idea the likes of Donald Trump would become President.
As I practical matter I don’t think it matters too much in this case. In a tight spot Trump would have some functionary agree to accept any and all blame for whatever offense and then either pardon him or unofficially have him lavishly rewarded for falling on the sword.
I just thought up a new figure of speech to describe this scenario: falling on a soft velvet sword.
Oh, I guess I missed the story where persons in the election campaign or the administration of President Barrack HUSSEIN Obama failed to disclose on their security applications the meetings they had with Russians connected to Putin.
this is to alternate-reality olly
You guess and miss a lot. Don’t be so hard on yourself. It’s not as though critical-thinking has proven to be in your skillset.
Haha. What a powerful and persuasive response. Although, it’s really all you could resort to; the facts being so very much aligned against you.
This is to inadequately-armed allen
Mark, You are ignorant of the facts and ignorant of the damage being done to the nation.
Over a period of a year Trump has been investigated.
Facts why an investigation should occur. Provide them.
You can’t so stop wasting time and go flie some papers.
Is a Presidential pardon liited to Federal crimes ? Are state crimes covered by a Presidential pardon?
No, by states’ rights.
This is a solution in search of a problem. No President could survive such a self-pardon as an impeachment is a virtual certainty. Since that process is the only punishment for “high crimes and misdemeanors,” that would end the ordeal.
Some things are common sense. It also does not state in the Constitution that a president should not do illegal drgs in thr WH, but we would all agree that doing so is unacceptable. A president should NOT be allowed to pardon himself, NOR co-conspirators.
L j payne – since all citizens are equal under the Constitution, all have the ability to be pardoned, including the President.
A president can receive a pardon but that isn’t the whole question. A pardon is a transaction. There must be a grantor and a grantee. The President cannot transact with himself. To take an example – a person who owns real estate. While that person could execute a deed that adds a co-owner, i.e. a husband transferring ownership from himself to himself and his spouse or a person could execute a deed form him’herself to an entity s/he controls, an individual could not deed deed directly to himself.
Assuming we more or less survive the present situation, it might be a good idea if future presidents would also swear (in addition to defending the Constitution etc) to put the interests of the United States above those of any foreign power or foreign business interest…..
https://twitter.com/roddreher/status/888789802073677824
Good idea.
“Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal”
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?mcubz=0
“As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million.”
“And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.”
“But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors.”
The American people that rejected Clinton will never accept any outcome that punishes Trump and leaves Clinton free from indictment and more importantly, not convicted. NEVER!
No different from those that thought Bill Clinton’s impeachment was bogus. Your snowflake ain’t above the law.
Impeach Clinton
They already do
They want to bag another one. Talk about a witch hunt.
What good are such oaths? All presidents take an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution”. Yet no president since Cleveland has rigorously fulfilled that oath, and no one since Coolidge has made a decent effort. Then, how does one judge? I did not vote for Trump and won’t in 2020. So what has Trump done, as president, for Russia? Has he approved the sale of Uranium One? Did he do a Yalta Conference type deal?
The question is hypothetical and academic, the hopes of Trump detractors notwithstanding.
Tribe is enough of a shifty character that liberal opinion journalists were slicing him up 30 years ago. That aside, Both Stanley Brubaker and Robert Bork published critiques of his work in that era as well, offering satisfactory demonstrations that he was unserious – a shyster with a high class faculty appointment. Painter has beclowned himself more recently. Why pretend to take these jack-wagons seriously?
This is just ad-hominem. How about analyzing their arguments?
Cheap parry, and a fallacious one.
People offer Painter and Tribe as authorities. When they’re demonstrably untrustworthy, you do not treat their statements as authoritative.
It’s a blog comment, Jay, not a law review article. Brubaker’s treatment of Tribe was published in the January 1989 issue of Commentary. You can consult it at your leisure. Not that you will.
Sheeeshhh, Susan – another ad-hominem slam !
Professor, I respectfully disagree. If the president has the right to pardon himself, it would effectively make him above the law. That I would argue is antithetical to everything for which the Constituion stands. No one is above the law!
As an asid, I’m pretty sure that if a president could pardon himself Nixon’s justice department would have found a way.
Nixon with all his problems believed America came first. He wasn’t as smooth and beguiling as some, but time looks favorably on him as to his view of America. We can’t say the same for some of those that followed and pillaged the White House.
I am not a lawyer, but your statement rings true to me, and is the most compelling argument I have read to date! It also seems to me, that in this particular case, a pardon to ANYONE involved in this case while it is under investigation, must, by its nature be an obstruction of justice and is subverted into a criminal act. Because the pardon requires the admission of guilt by the one pardoned, and since treason is the potential outcome of this investigation (aiding and abetting a foreign country in an act of war against the united states which this hacking has been defined as, by our intelligence services and congress), the pardon itself could be defined as a high crime subject to impeachment.
Trump even THINKING of self-pardon suggests his guilt. A self-pardon will cement that into history. Watch Pence.
Your argument strikes me as being wistful; what should be rather than what is. After all, the framers wanted simultaneously to give the president as much authority as possible and, according to professor Turley, touched on the subject with the conclusion that the impeachment exceptions covered any potential problem.
Crafting these kinds of documents, which attempt valiantly to overcome the human condition in a document written by humans and interpreted by humans, is always tricky at best.
Speaking of tricky, I would be amazed if Nixon didn’t have full assurance from Ford that a pardon would be forthcoming. We have been living with that precedent ever since, BTW, and it has essentially meant the powerful are beyond the law no matter what Ford’s intentions might have been. As Obama has proven with extra judicial assassinations, and Bush before him with torture programs, and both with complete tolerance for bank and investment corruption, it is incontestable that the hens have come home to roost.
Unfortunately, the Constitution does not exactly say that no one is above the law.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/47499.htm
http://www.mediaite.com/online/helen-thomas-zionists-own-congress-white-house-hollywood-wall-street/
Patriot – Helen Thomas is the village idiot of ‘journalists’.
Paul, HT died almost 4 years ago to the day.
Roscoe Coltrane – I thought she was dead, but I was too lazy to look her up. My statement still stands. She was noted for her anti-Semitism.
PS
Who “noted” HT was ant-Semitic, and by whose standards? Do you equate anti-Zionists with anti-Semites?
Do you even know the difference? By your logic, it would be fair to label you ant-Black because you’re a noted Obama hater.
bill mcwilliams – obama is bi-racial. I am only against the white half. And since I am white, I cannot be racist, just ask blacks.
I do not see this as being constitutional but aside from that the irony is that the federal gov’t wants to punish individuals for boycotting a particular nation but various state governments have boycotted other states for enacting legislation they deemed unacceptable. Somehow, those boycotts were permissible. I find it surprising those state to state boycotts have not been addressed in the courts.