Andrew McCarthy on Obama and Holder’s drug pardons
McCarthy strongly criticizes Obama and Holder here. It’s worth reading the whole thing; too bad most Americans won’t read even a single sentence of it. Here’s an excerpt:
…[I]n making a mockery of his core constitutional duty to execute the laws faithfully, the broad law-enforcement discretion the Constitution vests in the executive branch has been President Obama’s preferred sleight of hand…Thus is “prosecutorial discretion” the subterfuge for usurping congressional law-making power ”” the maze of unilateral waivers, amendments, and whole-cloth weaving that marks Obama’s enforcement of the “Affordable” Care Act, the immigration laws, and other federal statutes.
Alas, the next item on the transformational-change agenda is undoing prior administrations’ faithful execution of the narcotics laws. The forward-looking prosecutorial-discretion doctrine is unavailing to address the past. That is where the pardon power comes in…
President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder, will use the executive’s pardon power to rewrite the narcotics statutes. This is a gross abuse. The pardon power exists to mitigate injustice in individual cases. The president, to the contrary, proposes to use it to target laws he disagrees with ”” laws whose constitutionality is beyond dispute but to which he objects on policy grounds. Which is to say: laws that it is his solemn constitutional duty to execute faithfully, not undermine.
As usual, the administration’s story is rife with fraud. Holder carefully talks about “non-violent” drug “offenders.” Obama riffs about “kids or individual users” supposedly “lock[ed] up . . . for long stretches of jail time.” You are left to imagine poor addicts who never hurt anyone but themselves, languishing for decades in some super-max prison. Yet federal drug enforcement targets felony drug dealers, not simple possession of drugs ”” the latter is left to the states. Mere users of marijuana and crack are not wasting away in federal penitentiaries. Moreover, an offender sentenced under a mandatory-minimum provision has necessarily committed a significant narcotics felony; the felony distribution of minor amounts of narcotics is not subject to a mandatory minimum, and judges maintain discretion to sentence those offenders to little or no jail time. Obama and Holder are talking about freeing what could amount to thousands of serious criminals…
A lawless president does more than violate his oath and demonstrate his unfitness. He forfeits trust. You say you want immigration reformed? You say you want drug policy rethought? Opinions on these matters vary widely, but one thing is for certain: It makes no sense to legislate on a subject that hinges on effective law enforcement unless you can trust that the law you pass will be the law. That means you have to be able to trust the president. With this president, it means waiting for the next president.
Obama and Holder’s actions should be of bipartisan concern. It is outrageous that they are not.
The comments section of McCarthy’s article is interesting to read, as well. A lot of the comments are from Obama’s supporters, praising him and excoriating McCarthy for ignoring the fact that presidents have broad pardon power. They do, but as McCarthy states in his essay:
The pardon power exists to mitigate injustice in individual cases. The president, to the contrary, proposes to use it to target laws he disagrees with ”” laws whose constitutionality is beyond dispute but to which he objects on policy grounds. Which is to say: laws that it is his solemn constitutional duty to execute faithfully, not undermine.
It’s true that the Constitution does not explicitly limit the sort of thing Obama/Holder are doing here. But that could be because it may have been considered obvious that getting around constitutional laws by pardoning broad classes of people who violate a certain law would in itself be a violation, perhaps even worthy of impeachment.
If you want to read about the legal status of presidential pardons, see this. It seems fairly clear to me that almost all previous presidential pardons (and the entire process that has grown up to expedite them) have applied to individuals or to groups of people engaged in a particular incident (such as, for example, Washington’s pardon of the leaders of the Whiskey Rebellion, as opposed to pardoning anyone participating in acts of rebellion). There is one glaring exception, however: Jefferson’s pardon of editors violating the extremely controversial Alien and Sedition Acts.
It’s instructive to go back and look at what Jefferson did, and what people have had to say about it since. The Alien and Sedition Acts were extremely notorious even in their own day for seeming to violate the principles of free speech and freedom of the press. Unlike the far more pedestrian narcotics laws Obama and Holder are affecting by their acts of pardon, the Alien and Sedition Laws had never been subject to Supreme Court judicial review, since the right to do so had not yet been established yet by Marbury vs. Madison. But this was the situation:
The Democratic-Republicans made the Alien and Sedition Acts an important issue in the 1800 election. Thomas Jefferson, upon assuming the Presidency, pardoned those still serving sentences under the Sedition Act, though he also used the acts to prosecute several of his own critics before the acts expired…While government authorities prepared lists of aliens for deportation, many aliens fled the country during the debate over the Alien and Sedition Acts, and Adams never signed a deportation order.
The Alien and Sedition Acts were never appealed to the Supreme Court, whose right of judicial review was not established until Marbury v. Madison in 1803. Subsequent mentions in Supreme Court opinions beginning in the mid-20th century have assumed that the Sedition Act would today be found unconstitutional.
Jefferson and James Madison also secretly drafted the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions denouncing the federal legislation, though many other state legislatures strongly opposed these resolutions. Though the resolutions followed Madison’s “interposition” approach, Jefferson advocated nullification and at one point drafted a threat for Kentucky to secede. Jefferson’s biographer Dumas Malone argued that this might have gotten Jefferson impeached for treason, had his actions become known at the time. In writing the Kentucky Resolutions, Jefferson warned that, “unless arrested at the threshold,” the Alien and Sedition Acts would “necessarily drive these states into revolution and blood.” Historian Ron Chernow says of this “he wasn’t calling for peaceful protests or civil disobedience: he was calling for outright rebellion, if needed, against the federal government of which he was vice president.” Jefferson “thus set forth a radical doctrine of states’ rights that effectively undermined the constitution.” Chernow argues that neither Jefferson nor Madison sensed that they had sponsored measures as inimical as the Alien and Sedition Acts themselves. Historian Garry Wills argued “Their nullification effort, if others had picked it up, would have been a greater threat to freedom than the misguided [alien and sedition] laws, which were soon rendered feckless by ridicule and electoral pressure.” The theoretical damage of the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions was “deep and lasting, and was a recipe for disunion”. George Washington was so appalled by them that he told Patrick Henry that if “systematically and pertinaciously pursued”, they would “dissolve the union or produce coercion”. The influence of Jefferson’s doctrine of states’ rights reverberated right up to the Civil War and beyond.
These are far from trivial questions, although the states’ rights issue does not come up in the present situation re Obama, Holder, and the drug pardons. However, it is clear that pardoning a class of criminals is an exceedingly unusual act even under the presidents’ broad pardon powers, and that Obama and Holder’s announcement should arouse tremendous outrage and concern.
Of course, that’s true of an awful lot of what they’ve done. But it’s only the right that seems to care.
So what’s Obama’s end game with this? I don’t understand what he and Holder have to gain by doing this, but maybe it’s because I can’t believe that he’s actually all that concerned with the well-being of the felony drug offenders.
Money. There’s money in it somewhere. And they’re probably mostly black and are needed back on the streets to have conversations about race.
They are doing it because they have no respect for the rule of law, no concern for the inevitable negative impact involved in turning ruthless felons loose upon society, and mainly because they know they will praised by the base.
If crime statistics are true, much of the decrease in crime rates is due to tougher sentencing and the “three strikes you’re out laws.” I don’t know how many of those who are pardoned will re-offend, but it’s likely a fair percentage will. If crime rates increase, these pardons could be pointed to as being partially responsible. That wouldn’t be good for Obama. So, it seems there is no upside unless: A high percentage of those pardoned are black. Obama and Holder don’t need to cater to black voters, they are already locked in. It might just be a move to give the finger to Whitey. Pure racial chutzpah? It seems to fit a lot of what they do.
Why is Obama doing this?
As others have said: “follow the money.”
But, we all know not to hold our breaths while waiting for the “news Media” to do their research and follow the money.
Why pardon? Why not just commute sentences?
IMO, JJ has the right of it. This is about race and white privilege and social justice. This is about paying back ‘whitey’.
Obama and Holder are immune. They know nothing will happen to them.
They are untouchable.
They don’t care one bit about the law or the constitution. With Obama it is always about him.
One hypothesis of mine:
They are experimenting with the pardons as a reward system. In the case that they need to mobilize their civilian security force, those goons will want a promise of immunity if they are going to follow the orders for the rape and kill squads. So Hussein, by demonstrating good faith with the base, can be believed on a broader level when he says he’ll sign pardons for all of his stormtroopers.
In the meanwhile, pardons are worth a lot of money and people who can’t be Hussein but would like to be his lackeys, will gladly become part of the Left in return for a pardon.
Barry and Coy believe that disparate impact is ALL.
Since his bro’s are on the inside, he wants them out.
No small measure of this segment are the NOI fanatics.
Barry seems to want to create pre-revolutionary conditions in the streets of America.
He has only 999 days left to do so.
He’s on a mission from — his Father’s dreams.
Just figure what Huey Newton would do, and that’s what these two clowns will do.
And Americans are stupid and self-loathing enough to vote for them, twice.
Comrade Zero is the ultimate Teflon President. Gets away with blue murder, and none of our politicos has the stones to hold him to account. He will skate, like always.
There is something going on beneath the surface and it ain’t bad. Remember, the American Revolution was the result of years of unrest and objection, and even then a majority was against the revolt.
Times have changed, but people have not. Something is incubating, slowly and gradually. Many, most do not see it but it is there. The turnout at the Bundy ranch shows it. The Statists among us are still thinking, “WTF? Where did all those people come from?”
Hussein and Eric see it too. They are not stupid.
With enough suffering, even fools can become wise.
Beverly said, “Comrade Zero is the ultimate Teflon President. Gets away with blue murder, and none of our politicos has the stones to hold him to account…”
I understand the frustration, but there’s not really anything our side can do. Our system of government only allows for three ways to punish a president:
1) Criminal charges – Eric Holder won’t allow that.
2) Impeachment – Bringing the charges only requires a majority in the House, conviction requires 2/3 in the Senate. Some Senate Democrats would vote against conviction even if Obama were filmed murdering someone. When one side is intransigent, nothing will happen.
3) Electoral change – this “punishes” the president only insofar as it supposedly neuters his agenda. The voters are starting to turn on Obama, but only because they were individually hurt by Obamacare…it’s not like they suddenly gained some sense of Constitutional propriety. Still, this is a good thing as it promotes transparency: if Republicans control the Senate, they can force votes that are uncomfortable for Democrats; the kind of votes that Reid has been blocking.
All of this is more muted than it should be because of the unfailing support/propaganda of the MSM.
Obama gamed the system. Now, all we can do is make incremental gains and force votes that expose the leftist agenda.
As far as why Obama/Holder are doing this:
The “money” explanation only goes so far. I think Obama/Holder have enough already, and don’t seem to be taking actions to line their own pockets. They will line the pockets of followers only as much as it takes to buy their support. Maximization of graft doesn’t seem to be the endpoint to me.
It seems to me that everything they do has always been primarily political. By that token, this move would be a sop to the black/Hispanic communities in order to shore up electoral support for the coming elections. Obama seems to be trying to give those constituencies what they want, or more accurately, what he thinks they want. What they really want (according to polling) is jobs, but Obama knows that he either cannot or will not do what is required to turn the economy around.
Apart from moves that inarguably hurt the economy, like increasing the cost of healthcare with the ACA, what businesses hate most are uncertainty and overregulation.
Obama overregulates because he wants power and control.
Obama creates uncertainty because he’s maximizing his own political flexibility. This is what all dictators do.
For those two reasons, I think he CAN NOT fix the economy because it would require the opposite of his personal goals.
Therefore, all he has left by way of bribes are the items farther down the agenda of the minority communities…the number 6, 7 and 8 items.
@Don Carlos
I agree that Obama/Holder called off the attack dogs of the BLM. If there’s one thing a Marxist community organizer knows, it’s how to read public sentiment and “just how far” he can push.
I realized some time ago that because of this, Obama was unlikely to ever push the electorate past the breaking point. Of course, he will push us right up to the edge instead.
The Bundy thing was only going to end one of three ways if it became a shooting war:
1) The BLM “wins” by murdering scores of militiamen. The MSM/WH would vigorously try to spin this their way, but there’s no guarantee…remember the Boston massacre? That could spark open revolt and possibly a wave of political assassinations.
2) Some kind of draw…same dangers as #1 above.
3) The militia win. This would be HUGELY embarrassing for Obama. It would energize further armed opposition and would probably result in escalation. Using massed armed forces on US soil would be incredibly provocative.
Instead, the statists did what they always do: defuse the public conflict so that they can return later to have their way out of the public eye.
Now why wouldn’t Obama want his own Dirlewanger Brigade? Google it….
@Matt_SE
Fortunately, bad people, very bad people are still human and so will make mistakes. Hussein and Holder, the Aitch Brothers, are making them. They may have concerns about a surge coming, the surge I sense building. And as in Tunesia, it may take a minor event like one poor sidewalk vendor setting himself on fire to trigger the storm. We will learn how well the Aitch Bros have prepared… they are preparing.
The Waffen SS had some good uniforms.
I’m sure Michele’s black brigade SS getting paid prostitutes, will want to wear something as good sooner or later.