Trump's Prediction Comes True - Sheriff Joe "will be just fine."
Legal challenge to Arapaio pardon begins - Jennifer Rubin, Washington Post, August 30
President Trump invoked his broad constitutional power to pardon Americans with a somewhat unprecedented pardon of Maricopa Sheriff Joe Arapaio on August 25th as Hurricane Harvey made landfall in Texas. The visual above reflects the idea that Arapaio was a justifiably tough law figure that was simply "doing his job" as Trump said at an rally in Phoenix earlier in the week. However, no other president has used the powerful pardon power to help a public official held in contempt of court for violating the constitutional rights of random US citizens. A public interest group called Project Democracy is challenging the constitutionality of the pardon on the grounds that it violates the 5th Amendment's Due Process Clause as well as the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The group claims that Trump cannot "obviate the court's powers to enforce its orders when the constitutional rights of others are at stake." Last, many observers suspect that the pardon of Arapaio is actually a message to anyone related to the FBI probe of Trump associates and their connections to Russia. Anyone under investigation as part of former FBI Director Robert Mueller's probe might resist any inquiries with the knowledge that Trump will use the executive branch's immense power to pardon on anyone that faces actual charges in the future. Hearings are schedules and the courts will weigh in, though an overturn of a pardon would be unprecedented to the nth degree.
Respond to one of the following:
1. In light of recent talk of "fixing DACA" and protecting dreamers, how does the Arapaio pardon relate to Trump's general narrative and his specific issues with immigration?
2. What is the most controversial pardon in US history (Nixon, Rich, Patty Hearst, Draft Dodgers, Confederate Soldiers, Chelsea Manning - her sentence was actually commuted, others...)?
3. Obvious question - do you think the pardon was reasonable? Why or why not?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. This pardon shows his inconsistency, specifically on the issue of immigration. While he has always had a very anti-immigration rhetoric, trying "fix DACA" and support Dreamers does not "agree" with this. While he could be responding to the overwhelming backlash from rescinding DACA, pardoning Arapaio only shows his support for his decisions and validating the reasons he committed his crimes.
ReplyDelete1. The pardon is a further example of Trumps hard stance on immigration. Arapaio was very against immigration and Trump wanted to send a message that the government should do whatever it takes to deport illegal aliens. By "fixing DACA" Trump would preferably limit rights for dreamers, which is consistent with his anti-immigration stance
ReplyDelete2. The most well known and controversial pardon was the Nixon pardon. Nixon was obviously guilty, and people were bitter that he did not get sentenced or fined. I think Gerald Ford made the right decision pardoning Nixon, and trying to move on from the Watergate scandal, rather than having all the public attention on the to be trial.
3. The pardon or Arpaio was unjustified, because he violated peoples rights granted by the constitution.
-Brady Kiesling
1. The decision to pardon Arpaio reiterates the fact that Trump has no bias or ideology in almost every single issue, from abortions to partisanship, and in this case, immigration. On one hand Trump claims that if the policies of DACA aren't passed in Congress he will recreate an executive action for DACA. On the other hand, by pardoning Joe Arpaio, Trump demonstrates that he does not mind the fact that Arpaio is overwhelmingly against illegal immigration. Nevertheless, one can argue that Trump pardoned Joe Arpaio simply because of the fact that Arpaio has been a supporter of Trump on the campaign since almost the beginning.
ReplyDelete2. Vietnam Draft Dodgers, personally, seems to be the most controversial pardon. So many soldiers died who went to Vietnam, and yet those who fled to Canada and did not register received a pardon for not risking their life like everyone else.
3. From Donald Trump's standpoint, pardoning Arpaio was reasonable and strategic. By doing so, he further solidified the support from his white base that voted for him. From a moral standpoint, pardoning Arpaio was very unreasonable, especially considering all of the things that Arpaio did during his career as a sheriff such as extreme mistreatment of Latino prisoners.
3. The pardon is unjustified beyond a reasonable doubt. There is concrete evidence tried in court to show Arpaio has inflicted cruel and unusual punishments, and that he was not just "doing his job". The president can pardon absolutely anybody, but when the person in question has violated someone else's constitutional rights, then that pardon should be overruled. (Pardons do not exempt people from following the law!)
ReplyDelete3. The pardon was unjustified because Arapaio was convicted for violating the constitutional rights and if people started violating the constitution because they know that Trump will pardon them if its in his best interest, there would be no reason to have a constitution because laws would be made by the president and what interest him.
ReplyDelete3. The pardon is unjustified not only because the pardon itself was an abuse of executive power, but the nature of the pardon did not align with the original purpose of pardons. The original purpose of the being able to pardon officials was to extend mercy to an official who had showed remorse for his/her actions. As this was not the case, this pardon is unjustified because Trump's sole reason for pardoning was to protect his own interests. Moreover, Arapaio clearly violated the constitution, a document of rules that applies to everyone, and is therefore deserving of consequences for his actions.
ReplyDeleteThe most controversial pardon in US history was likely the pardon of Richard Nixon, the 37th president of the United States due to his involvement with the Watergate Scandal that Nixon attempted to cover up and get in the way of the investigation. President Ford pardoned him after Nixon resigned. Some thought this pardon was necessary for moving forward but others disagreed, thinking it didn’t fully address wrongdoings and misuse of power.
ReplyDeleteThe pardon was absolutely unreasonable because Arapaio went against the constitution and violated the rights of a common man. Trump pardoned him because he believed in Arapaio and had his own self interests attached with it. Aprapio did not even show any remorse or forgiveness for his actions and yet they president decided to pardon him. Trump misused the executive power and it was completely unjustifiable to the constitution and the American people.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe pardon of Joe Arpaio was unreasonable and an abuse of executive power. The only reason Trump has pardoned him was to protect his own interests. Presidential pardon powers were not created to pardon those who protect the president's personal interests, but to extend mercy to those who have offended and have demonstrated remorse. Arpaio has not demonstrated the slightest bit of remorse and he has violated the constitutional rights of others. By pardoning Arpaio, Trump is sending a message that laws can be ignored as long as he supports them. This is a threat to democracy and there would be no point in the constitution if the president can pardon anyone who violates it. Trump's pardon on Joe Arpaio is morally unjustifiable and an abuse of executive power.
ReplyDeleteThe pardon was in no way reasonable. Joe Arpaio was violating people of their constitutional rights which alone is inexcusable. The fact that Donald Trump dismissed this as Arpaio "just doing his job" is exactly what is going to make people think that racial profiling is acceptable. In pardoning Arpaio, Trump is validating and justifying racism.
ReplyDeleteThe Fight against North Korea can be won through sanctions by the UN and staying with the group. If we run from the pack and go aggressive we may set ourselves up for a heavy war we do not need at this time. With the UN backing us and applying pressure we can have a group leverage. Even with Russia and China being somewhat more sympathetic and light on North Korea I'm sure the other strong bodies on the non-veto side of the UN can help the USA sway their ideas.
ReplyDeleteThe pardon is unexcusable. Joe Arpaio completely violated not only the constitution, but the rights of a common man. Trump however, did not handle it in a way that can go ignored due to the fact that he did it for his own benefit, essentially putting the idea in people's minds that racism is okay, when in fact it is far from it. Because of this, people will think that Trump's pardon powers are unlimited. In fact, never before has someone stretched the pardon power so beyond its original intent, which makes this an intolerable act to man kind and equality as a whole.
ReplyDeleteThe pardon was un no way reasonable. Joe Arpaio violated the constitution and therefore violated the rights of other American citizens. Trump abused his power to pardon this man who should not get to walk free after that he did.
ReplyDeleteWhile the pardon of Arapaio seems unconstitutional and immoral, President Trump is under extreme political stresses. President Trump won the election with a plan of action towards illegal immigrants, and he is simply following through on it now. It may seem unreasonable for him to pardon Arapaio after his acts of injustice against immigrants, but President Trump simply wishes to follow the majority of his voters' wishes.
ReplyDeleteAdam Noworolski (This was accidentally posted on the 4th period blog on 9/18)
2. I think the most outrageous pardon in the history of the united States is Bill Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich (the name is quite amusing). Having been caught evading over $46 million in taxes and making oil deals with Iran illegally, he was pardoned because his wife was a major fundraiser for the Democratic party. This goes to show the virulent power of the executive, where someone who actually participated in treason as defined by the constitution was pardoned for a partisan reason. It is truly disgusting that people can rob this country blind, engage in trade with our enemies, and still walk free. That lack of accountability, especially for the elite, will be the death of the American democratic system.
ReplyDeleteThe light that this pardon shines on Trumps immigration intentions only further proves the narrative of an unpredictable agenda. When Trump pardons a figure like Joe Arpaio, a man notable for his enforced racial profiling to cut down on illegal immigration and habit of ignoring the rape cases of illegal immigrants, it supports the image of Trump as a politician who will have a hardline stance against immigration from mexico. When considered in the wake of his "fixing DACA" statement that seems to be working to allow the dreamers to stay in the country his agenda seems confused, and the voters can tell. Some of his oldest supporters are criticizing him for going back on his words in regards to DACA.
ReplyDelete-Jackson Gravagno
Delete3- To me and most others it is very clear that Arapaio violated multiple laws and the rights that are guaranteed under the constitution. Therefor it is pretty obvious that Arapaio should be serving time right now instead of being a free man. Even with a lot of evidence that Arapaio was a criminal is is unlikely that the pardon will be reversed.
ReplyDelete-Nick Dohemann
1. Joe Arapaio's pardon relates to Trumps immigration reform laws because like Trump, Arapaio wished to try and get rid of as many illegal immigrants as he could. This is related to issues with DACA and immigration reform as Trump wishes to get rid of DACA so that more immigrates are forced to go back to the country that they came from.
ReplyDelete2. The pardon of the Confederate soldiers came as the most controversial to me as they were highly racist and dangerous to those of the Black community. It is shocking since they spread hate to those who had no choice of their color and still seemed to get away with it. It also relates to the riot in Charlottesville as the people in the riot showed disrespect to those that, again, had no choice in their appearance, and is still shocking how little effect it pulled to people like our current president.
3. The pardon was not reasonable as Arapaio had tried to deport those he only suspected of being illegal, where they could have been legal. However, people with that same mindset as Arapaio, like Trump, would find the pardon resonable since they agree with the issue that is illegal immigration and feel that immigrants need to be removed not welcomed.
-Luis Chacon
1. In general, Trump is anti-immigration, and he has often talked about deport illegal immigrants. When Trump says he wants to “fix DACA,” he really just wants to deport those illegal immigrants. The pardon of Arpaio relates to Trump’s stance on immigration as Joe Arpaio, like Donald Trump, has anti-immigration beliefs.
ReplyDelete3. The pardon was absolutely unreasonable. Trump who was "just using his constitutional rights" actually used an immoral loophole. He pardoned another white supremacist who shares a similar mindset to Trump and basically got him a “get out of jail free card” instead of serving time for his illegal actions on top of his racist thoughts.
ReplyDelete3. The pardon was reasonable because it is outlined in the Constitution that the President has the power to parden people. If President Trump beleives that pardoning Arapaio will be beneficial, then it is in his power to do so.
ReplyDelete- Henry Lambson
3. Although the president has the power to pardon anyone of his choice, the reasoning behind his choice more than likely has little to do with the notion that Arpaio was just doing his job. Just because the president has the constitutional right to do so, pardoning a convict who threatened the constitutional rights of others is not reasonable.
ReplyDelete3. The president has the power to pardon those he sees are not deserving of the punishment they have been given. And while yes, every thanksgiving we laugh with our families as the president pardons a turkey from being a thanksgiving meal, the power the president holds is dangerous, and it is up to the public to monitor and analyze who the president pardons. In the case of Joe Arpaio, although he claims he was just doing his job, he discriminated against both women and minorities/migrants. The president's pardon was reasonable if and only if that is truly the message he wants America to receive. That message being that misogyny and bigotry are condoned by the U.S.
ReplyDelete-Oliver Nix
3. Donald Trump's actions were unjustified for a variety of reasons. First of all, he violates his power to pardon people by abusing it in order to benefit those that share his racist views, and without using any basis for it. In addition to abusing his powers, Donald Trump pardoned someone who clearly broke the law and was not "just doing his job". Arapaio was racially discriminatory and continued to be even after he was asked to stop.
ReplyDelete1. Trump made a little bit of a fool of himself starting his presidential term with a pardon, something that does not usually happen. With all of the weight on the DACA removal and now adding some fuel to the fire he set up a large uproar. His pardon, shows his anti-immigration feelings but also has some contrast with how he is beginign the abuse of power. Sure it is his power as president but it is far from a justified action. He is continuing to show a strong lack of support to immigrants an important puzzle piece to the US economy and work force. This causes concern because with the travel ban also being put in some effect he has begun to shut down all services to people we need in the US.
ReplyDelete3. I feel that while he is allowed to pardon citizens it should not be allowed if said citizen violated a basic right of another citizen. I feel that doing this pardon while another large thing was happening further shows that he knows it was not necessarily right as he did it while the focus was taken it away. I do not know if it was necessarily wrong for him to pardon the officer but it definitly was not right either.
ReplyDelete