I'm of two minds about Biden's decision to pardon Hunter.
On the one hand, I firmly believe that the presidential pardon is intentionally an unrestricted power of the executive and that any encroachments on powers reserved to the various branches of government are wrong. I also understand a father wanting to help his son.
But.......... on the other hand this particular pardon reeks of saving Joe's ass. It seems obvious that, given the scope of the pardon, that Joe does not want a federal prosecutor to offer Hunter immunity to spill the beans on the whole family. Further, the hypocrisy of pardoning Hunter for violating firearms law, while simultaneously prosecuting people for similar violations and while trying to restrict the 2nd amendment rights of firearms owners is incredibly hypocritical. Not only that, but Biden has been promising for months that he would not pardon Hunter because Hunter was not above the law. As far as I'm concerned, the left bitching about Trump's lies is now off the table, unless and until they apply the same standard to their own
I think I've said else where that Trump should have pardoned Hunter for the charges he'd been convicted of as a demonstration of magnanimity. But a blanket pardon for anything Hunter has done tells me that the Hunter "conspiracy theories" are more than likely True and that the Biden family raked in lots of money through illegal/unethical means.
Too bad Joe is too old and incompetent to actually stand trial himself.
https://winteryknight.com/2024/12/03/hunter-biden-pardon-proves-that-fascist-secular-leftists-think-they-are-above-the-law/
25 comments:
I've been reading a few articles about this issue this morning, and I agree with the argument that there's no justification for pardoning this guy. The notion of presidential pardon is based on English law (as isn't uncommon for the founders) which allows for some recognition by those in power to pardon in cases where there are some mitigating circumstances, which in such recognition the merit of the law is not impacted. Said another way, the arguments for such pardon are not met in the case of Hunter Biden. I was considering a post of my own on this issue (which also speaks to who is truly corrupt...Biden or Trump....hint: it ain't Trump) which would include links to the articles to which I referenced.
I don't agree that there's any need for magnanimity. There's no parallel issue suffered by anyone on the right which would suggest it's appropriate or...uh...magnanimous. Trump's focus needs to be on those who have been unfairly persecuted (Jan 6ers, for example) and not on those who are just scumbags. The pardon power was not meant for scumbags.
And speaking of scumbags, it seems clear that pardoning Hunter for criminal acts for which he has not yet been charged strongly suggests a preemptive action to protect his own sorry ass from potential prosecution for abusing his position as president, as well as the rest of the Biden family.
Shame on Joe Biden. Period. This is wrong and especially wrong for the Democrats who are supposed to stand for justice and the notion that the rich and powerful are NOT above the law... and especially in the context of Trump and a magop movement who are precisely about setting themselves up as above the law. It is more vital than ever for at least one party to take the high road.
Shame on him and Lord only knows how much harm this does to an already debilitated and sickly political system.
Dan
Art,
There's rarely a need for magnanimity, yet it has it's place.
As I understand it, presidential pardon power is pretty much unlimited. I agree that I would prefer that pardons go to those who are wrongly convicted, but that's just personal preference.
In this particular case, I take issue with what seems like the clear intent to protect the rest of the Biden family for actions that enriched all of them. I further take issue with Biden breaking his oft repeated promise. Finally, I take issue with the "selective prosecution" excuse, Hunter was prosecuted by Biden's DOJ so Biden expects us to believe that his DOJ went after Hunter selectively?
As I said, I don't have a problem with pardons in principal, this one just looks incredibly self serving.
It's good to hear you criticize Biden. I'm not sure that there's much example of the APL holding the "rich and powerful" to account, unless they can be accused of being conservative. As we saw in the GA prosecution of Trump the APL clearly engaged in activities that were beyond the scope of law and legal ethics, while Sam Bankman-Fried certainly got a sweet deal and the Epstein client list is somehow still hidden.
I understand your need to cling to these conspiracy theories, and will not criticize you doing so. However, when Trump leaves office in 2029, and none of these dire predictions have come to pass, I expect a full acknowledgement of your failure.
I'm not sure that this does any additional harm to our political system, screwed up as it is, but it certainly doesn't help anything.
Craig,
This is truly a self-serving stunt by Biden. I don't believe he ever intended to allow his son to suffer what his actions have justified. Not for a minute. Had he kept his word, it would have been the first time he's ever done anything worthy of any praise...but it's not his style. He's a leftist and they don't operate that way.
I believe the authority to pardon is broad by consent, not by intention. That is to say, the founders had some notion for what it meant, which should be enough for any president to self-limit should the question of pardoning arise. It's not as if there's no way to find the founders' intentions. I mentioned an article which touches on it, and from that (the link to follow) comes this:
"The pardon power has two primary justifications: To mitigate harsh sentences that are out of proportion to the actions of the defendant or which do not adequately account for unique circumstances and to allow the executive to grant pardons in the larger public interest."
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/12/on_pardons_justice_and_privilege.html
The author goes on to give examples of each and to point out how nothing about the Hunter Biden situation falls under either justification. Its a good read. Getting some insight into the intention behind the pardon authority suggests...to me, anyway...the ambiguity is imposed and exploited, rather than truly in existence. But here we are. I don't know how it can be resolved, but it seems a good question to ask a candidate for president would be how he understands this authority to see how closely it aligns with those two very rational justifications. I think there will always be some degree of subjectivity, but what Biden's doing takes it way too far.
I'm sure by now you've seen the montages of all the Dem politicians and pundits firmly attesting their belief that "No one is above the law!!!" Clearly they don't truly believe it.
In the meantime, we have to suffer an entry from Dan where she again goes on about her fantastical belief that Trump and his followers "are precisely about setting themselves up as above the law", without ever having supported that claim in any way. She just chooses to believe and perpetuate that position as if a fact.
Art,
I 100% agree that this is a self serving act bu BIden. His stunt was him repeatedly claiming that he wouldn't pardon Hunter due to his commitment to equal treatment under the law. This has little or nothing to do with Hunter and everything to do with keeping Joe's ass out of the wringer. If Joe thought it best for Hunter to do time, Hunter would be in the can.
I think it's obvious that the pardon power was left vague intentionally. I also think it's obvious that the founders counted on future presidents using their discretion. Yet, as it currently sits, the power of the pardon is virtually unlimited and completely at the discretion of the president.
The fact the Hunter's situation doesn't fall under the article's two points seems irrelevant. Politics aside, I have no problem with Biden pardoning Hunter from a purely letter of the law position. Yes it's sleazy, one more example of Biden lying, and everything else. But there's no legal reason why he couldn't do it.
(As an aside) If it was me, personally, I would have talked to Trump in their friendly meeting beside the fire and asked Trump to pardon Hunter first. It might not have worked, but I would have asked.
While I clearly agree that there are problems with the Hunter pardon, I cannot see how it falls outside of the (albeit vaguely) defined parameters of the pardon power. As such, it's not legally an abuse of power, however problematic it is. As I said earlier, had Biden not made such a big deal out of not pardoning Hunter, I don't think this would be nearly as big an issue as it is.
Absolutely, this is a great topic to discuss with presidential candidates during the election process. Knowing their individual views on the pardon power would be a potentially important factor in choosing who to vote for. Given that fact that the founders set no limits on the power of the pardon, it seems impossible to say that something is "too far" outside of nonexistent limits.
Shocking, the DFL/MSM/APL lied about their views on people being "above the law", did you really think that they were telling the Truth? To be fair, I've seen some criticism from the left of Biden's move on this.
Yes, Dan somehow manages to make his criticism of Biden into an attack on a conspiracy theory about Trump followers. He's a bit obsessed.
"I think it's obvious that the pardon power was left vague intentionally."
I think it certainly might seem so from the perspective of 2024. But I don't know that was the case when the Constitution was written and ratified. As my link points out, there was an understanding of intent and it would be near impossible to confine the authority too much to a point where it would be no better than the law which doesn't quite serve the individual case in question justly.
With that in mind, it isn't difficult to see that the Biden pardon does NOT align with the principle of the authority, as Hunter was given every bit of leeway as regards his trials, as had been affirmed by at least two pundits I've heard opining on the question. But more precisely, there are no mitigating circumstances which make his conviction and potential sentencing unjust, overtly cruel or in any other way, worthy of a pardon on the basis of either of the two points mentioned. And there's certainly no "larger public interest" in pardoning the cretin. Thus, there are no just or legitimate reasons why this guy should be pardoned for his offenses at all, but only that he's the president's son. That alone doesn't justify the pardon, even if one understands "a father's love for his child". If that were the case, then Joe's constant yammering about not granting the pardon prior to doing so is even more problematic.
Most might agree that is natural for Joe to want to pardon his son and as such would begrudgingly accept him doing so, even though doing so fails to merit doing so on the basis of the two criteria mentioned by Hamilton in Federalist #74. But of course there's way more to it than that given all the questions surrounding influence peddling and kick-backs.
So I don't think the intention was to be vague, since the two criteria are as specific as it can be while still allowing for some subjectivity within those guidelines. Dem Trump-haters have tried to pretend "Trump did it, too!" and they go on to list some Trump has pardoned. But even a cursory review of an honest account of those cases involved political persecution, which rationalizes their pardon. Sure, other presidents have "done it, too", so Biden's not the first, but clearly the worst to abuse this authority, or at least one of them. (Reagan's illegal amnesty was no prize winner, either, but that, too had some larger public interest aspect to it. He just got conned by the Dems.)
That's possible, but as with impeachment, the founders left some things vague enough to allow for the flexibility to adapt in the future. In any case, we can't know the intent to a 100% certainty and even if we could intent doesn't trump what's actually written in the documents. Therefore we're stuck with a very broad, undefined, absolute, position on pardons which is left to the discretion of the executive branch.
I fail to see the connection between how the DOJ slow walked Hunter's charges until the statute of limitations ran out, and otherwise had their finger on the scale of justice. If there is some sort of connection, then Biden would have pardoned him early in the process or allowed them to prosecute knowing he was going to pardon him anyway.
While I personally agree with your two arguments, neither of those two guidelines is actually binding. I suspect that you could go back through the pardons given by the last 10 presidents and find plenty to don't fit those two guidelines. Unfortunately, the founders chose not to include those in the constitution, and therefore applying them retroactively is a moot point. I don't disagree in principle, but I realize that trying to apply someone's hunch about the founders intent, when the founders chose not to limit the pardon, is kind of a waste of time. It's not even like there is a mechanism to overturn the pardon or punish Biden. It's an interesting theoretical discussion, but not applicable to real life.
I agree that most would, in the abstract, find little problem with a president pardoning their child. Strangely enough, there's an argument that the pardon might actually be helpful in going after others who were involved in Hunter's schemes by removing his ability to avail himself of his 5th amendment protection against self incrimination.
Again, if what ended up in the Federalist Papers was intended to be taken as binding it would have been included in the constitution/legal code. While they are illuminating as glimpses into the minds and thoughts of a few of the founders, they are not binding for a reason. In the absence of any other evidence, it's possible, even likely, that this is something that Hamilton felt strongly about but the other founders didn't. It's certainly not like every thought or act of Hamilton was always great. Ultimately, it's potentially an interesting conversation, but absent a constitutional convention, kind of pointless in any meaningful sense.
"In any case, we can't know the intent to a 100% certainty and even if we could intent doesn't trump what's actually written in the documents."
Intent dictates what the words in the documents mean. That's how originalist justices on the SCOTUS operate. What did those words mean to the people at the time of ratification? Federalist 74 provides. The Federalist Papers preceded ratification of the Constitution. Its purpose was to explain what the Constitution means, thus assuring the various colonies of the wisdom of ratification. Thus, what is written was enough at the time, and should be now given we have their clarifying explanations handy.
But even the words in the Constitution alone are limiting. As written, the criteria are hardly cyphers:
"...and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."
The following link provides details and interpretations:
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C1-3-1/ALDE_00013316/#:~:text=Cases%20of%20impeachment.-,U.S.%20Const.,exception%20the%20power%20is%20unlimited%20).
In any case, I would maintain that it's not what the law explicitly states as much as it is the honor of the president wielding this authority. Biden hasn't any. If he did, he would know that what he chose to do does not in any way align with the expressed intention of the pardon authority permitted under the Constitution. I would also insist that any subjectivity in interpretation must still align. That is, within the spirit of the founders' intentions as stated in the Federalist Papers. So this notion that it is so vague as to allow for anything is not supported by the the words of the founders themselves, but only a Trabue-like ("but the Bible doesn't say.../but God never said...") liberty commandeered by some presidents for self-serving or poorly informed reasons.
What we see in the Fed Papers are clarifications of the intention of the authors of the US Constitution. I say again, without them, ratification might not have happened. So, if we regard all signers of the document as founders, then we indeed know that those explanations we see in the Fed Papers are indeed shared by most, if not all, founders. I submit that the Fed Papers, as explanations to those authorized to ratify, resulted in basically "Oh...that's what I though. Thanks for confirming. Where do I sign?" or "Oh...so that's what it means. I wasn't sure. Thanks for clarifying. Where do I sign?" Sure, this is not to say that all ratifying members agreed with every jot and tittle, but as they all signed, it stands as written. And is it stands as written, the explanations found in the Fed Papers tell us what is meant by the clause, and even if it isn't exact and precise, allowing for some subjective application by a given president, it still is binding in this way: Think of a property with 1/4 acre of it with a fence around it. That would represent specificity, while the entire property...say, 100 acres fenced in...would represent more room to move. But its the same property. The clause is like the latter, but it still has some limiting factor based on the actual words alone, more so when those words are explained in the Fed Papers.
(The Anti-Federalist Papers did not prevent ratification. It did touch on this issue of presidential pardons, and abuses of it was the concern. But as Congress had the power to impeach, those concerns weren't compelling enough to remove it from the final copy.)
Intent, as interpreted by others, may inform but does not dictate. There's no way one person's views on intent can or should dictate over and above the language of the constitution or statute.
If by "limiting" you mean that they exclude "Cases of Impeachment", OK. If you mean that they exclude violations of state law, OK. But they literally INCLUDE every other violation of federal law.
In this specific case, as sleazy and self serving as it may be, violations of federal law committed by Hunter during the specified period would certainly be within the purview of the language of the constitution.
You can maintain whatever you want, it'll have no bearing on anything. Literally everything any president does is informed by their honor, yet honor is nowhere in the constitution as it relates to pardons.
The federalist papers are the thoughts and opinions of a small group of the founders expressing their opinions of "clarifications", yet those "clarifications" never actually made it into any governing document. Again, you can submit all you want, it doesn't change anything.
The problem you have is that the Federalist Papers, while exceedingly valuable, were not intended to be anything more than a guidebook. The constitution, with amendments, and US code are what governs. That you note that none of these explanation are "exact and precise" and subject to "some subjective application" merely reinforces my point. That Biden's action, while despicable, falls within the realm of "subjective application" and withing the not "exact and precise" realm you speak of.
Your farm analogy, makes no sense.
What's bizarre is that there is clearly no 100% correct answer, and both of our opinions fall within the "realm of orthodoxy", yet you seem to be insistent (based on one opinion piece) that your hunch is the only possible 100% correct view. In reality, our opinions overlap. The constitution contains minimal limits on pardons, and virtually everything depends on the honor of the person in office. Of course Biden has no honor, his actions throughout his public life demonstrate that. Of course his action was self serving. All of those things can be True, as well as the fact that he did not exceed the constitutionally defined authority to pardon. That you feel compelled to continue an argument where very little reason to argue exists, and the you feel compelled to make Dan comparisons, seems incredibly pointless to me.
"the opinions expressed by the authors of that work have been justly supposed to be entitled to great respect in expounding the Constitution. No tribute can be paid to them which exceeds their merit; but in applying their opinions to the cases which may arise in the progress of our government, a right to judge of their correctness must be retained."
John Marshall
"the legitimate meaning of the Instrument must be derived from the text itself; or if a key is to be sought elsewhere, it must be not in the opinions or intentions of the Body which planned & proposed the Constitution, but in the sense attached to it by the people in their respective State Conventions where it recd. all the authority which it possesses.
James Madison
"Humanity and good policy conspire to dictate, that the benign prerogative of pardoning should be as little as possible fettered or embarrassed."
Alexander Hamilton Federalist 74
While I don't doubt that you found the price you cited to be persuasive, I'm not sure that there isn't evidence that might not support your position and that should probably be considered. To be clear, I'm not arguing that your opinion is wrong, I am suggesting that it's not the only valid, True, position.
As if you've never made Dan comparisons yourself. For shame!
What I'm insisting upon is the recognition that the Fed Papers are affirmations and clarifications of that which at the time of ratification was understood to be the case. From that time to this, more self-serving ambiguity was injected into the various clauses which have come to be debated.
Here, it's become a matter of debating whether or not the clarifications and affirmations of the intent are ambiguous in a manner which allows for the liberties taken by various presidents in pardoning. Looking only at the wording of the Constitution, when the Federalist Paper authors are explaining why the Constitution was written as it was...and implying they should have RE-written the Constitution with the wording of the various Fed Paper, which then, ostensibly, would require another round of essays to explain to those opposing that version...and on and on and on. Said another way, what you insist should have been in the Constitution if we're to regard the Fed Papers as clarifying, already was. That's what "clarifying" is for. When the Constitution is taught in schools (assuming it ever is these days at all), clarifying continues and relies heavily on the Fed Papers.
No analogy is perfect, though mine isn't so goofy as to be Dan-like (the master of the crappy analogy). It refers to how more detail restrains action as does fencing in a smaller area, whereas less provides more room to move and more room to allow person subjectivity. The wording of the Constitution is the latter, but still restrains in a particular manner, with a particular intention which isn't all that difficult to grasp on its own, but less so with the clarification of Federalist 74.
As such, the Federalist papers aren't so much "thoughts and opinions" as they are explanations and clarifications of specific intentions presented to persuade those not yet convinced that ratification was the way to go.
As to honor, only those who value honor are bound by it. I agree that even honorable people can make bad decisions. Joe Biden postures as honorable, but has constantly proven no understanding or valuing of honor. I don't believe too many were surprised by his reversal regarding pardoning Hunter, and no claims of new revelations compelling that reversal are the least bit compelling. Instead, they confirm how little honor exists among his family or his party. As to honor being "nowhere in the constitution as it relates to pardons", I don't believe for an instant such a claim rationalizes abdicating dedication to it.
And by the way, I don't suppose anything I say ever has any bearing on anything by the mere expression of any of it.
I have made Dan comparisons, when you've acted like Dan, you complained about it so I stopped.
Again, you can insist on anything you want, that doesn't make it True. The Federalist was written by a small minority of the founders, and had little if no significant impact in the ratification of the constitution. The Federalist also argues against the Bill of Rights, so there's that.
A degree of ambiguity permeates many of the founding documents, which is why they've held up for as long as they have.
Here, it's become a matter of you insisting on a position which is not demanded by the evidence, and is not the only possible position to hold based on one opinion piece.
Since I'm not insisting anything, I fail to see how you can insist that "what I insist" actually describes any sort of reality.
Well, this particular analogy was far from perfect. So far as to be incomprehensible.
The problem with the position you insist must be correct, is that the Federalist was written by 4 people, and primarily by two people. While the constitution was more of a group project to reach it's final form.
Who is arguing abdicating a dedication to honor? I'm merely pointing out that the constitution does not list honor as a qualification for anything or anyone, nor does it appeal to honor as a factor in anything. You could, I suppose, argue that some concept of honor was assumed by the founders, yet Hamilton alone is hardly a paragon of honorable behavior.
When you insist that something you assert must be accepted as the only possible correct conclusion, it seems incongruous for you to then act as if you expect your insistence to have no bearing on anything or anyone.
"Humanity and good policy conspire to dictate, that the benign prerogative of pardoning should be as little as possible fettered or embarrassed."
Alexander Hamilton Federalist 74
It seems as though you somehow believe that I am arguing that the Federalist has no value or should not be be considered as a secondary source, when I am not. I would suggest that the role of the Federalist is akin to the role of commentaries when studying scripture. They are helpful, illuminating, and valuable in the study of scripture and in looking at what others have concluded. Yet they are not scripture and do not carry the same weight as scripture. Likewise the Federalist is a valuable insight into the thoughts of some of the framers of the constitution, but it's not and was never intended to do anything but point people to the constitution.
One problem I see when considering how much weight to give the federalist is Hamilton. Hamilton was clearly an outlier when it came to his personal convictions regarding the formation of the US. In some ways he was right, in others less so. Further, his behavior clearly showed that his adherence to some sort of systematic concept of honor was more theoretical than practical.
None of this is to diminish the place of the Federalist in the historical context of the founding, but as with many things context is important. One other bit of context is that the Federalist was written from a strong federalist position, yet the federalists were not necessarily the majority in the US at that point. Therefore it's not unreasonable to conclude that the Federalist was written by people who held a position which a majority of the US did not hold.
Again, none of this is to diminish the importance of the Federalist, but only to provide context.
"I have made Dan comparisons, when you've acted like Dan, you complained about it so I stopped."
I've complained because the comparisons were inappropriate and not at all reflective of anything I'd said. I stand by that and will every time you choose to do such in responding to my comments. Here, you do the "but the Constitution doesn't say", when my position is that it does "say" and Federalist 74 clarifies what does "say".
" The Federalist was written by a small minority of the founders, and had little if no significant impact in the ratification of the constitution."
Not true at all. The ratification of the constitution was by no means a slam dunk and the essays of the three Federalist authors indeed played a significant role in pushing it over the goal line. It was the point of writing them because ratification was so uncertain! And that not every argument in each and every one of them (no Bill of Rights necessary) succeeded doesn't change that.
"A degree of ambiguity permeates many of the founding documents, which is why they've held up for as long as they have."
But the issue here is how much is there really regarding pardon power. Fed 74 focuses on the intent while still allowing for some ambiguity, but not so much as has been commandeered by Biden and some others in the past. And again, how much was there at the time compared to how much some need there to be now...some such as Biden. Fed 74 suggests it's not as wide open as he needs it to be to rationalize his pardoning of Hunter. His prosecution was not unjust and I doubt there's any intention of cruel and unusual punishment about which he should be fearful. So clearly pardoning him is simply because Joe doesn't want his son to suffer his just fate, and likely a move toward covering his own sorry ass.
"Here, it's become a matter of you insisting on a position which is not demanded by the evidence, and is not the only possible position to hold based on one opinion piece."
Two, actually...the article to which I linked and the source material (Fed 74) which informs it. With those I provided more evidence for my position than you've provided in opposition to it...which has been nothing. The thing is, we both disagree with the pardon, but in addition to where we agree specifically, I've added background to the intention of the concept.
"Well, this particular analogy was far from perfect. So far as to be incomprehensible."
So you clearly choose to believe.
"The problem with the position you insist must be correct"...requires insisting the that this "ambiguity" has no restraints whatsoever, despite my addressing that with the facts of Fed 74 describing the intention of the clause. There is room to move, but there is also a fence...a fence you seem to believe doesn't exist at all. Indeed, I would say there are two fences. The first is the intention as explained in Fed 74 and the second being the honor and character of any given president not to abuse the power beyond the first fence.
"Who is arguing abdicating a dedication to honor? I'm merely pointing out that the constitution does not list honor as a qualification for anything or anyone, nor does it appeal to honor as a factor in anything."
Then it's a moot point. Acting honorably in performing the duties of president seems a given expectation.
"When you insist that something you assert must be accepted as the only possible correct conclusion, it seems incongruous for you to then act as if you expect your insistence to have no bearing on anything or anyone."
You say this sort of thing a lot, such as in discussions about Trump being the best choice for the GOP nomination for president in 2024. But I don't see why this would be a problem. If it's not the only possible correct conclusion, don't whine about my insistence that it's most likely the case. Present a compelling argument to mitigate my insistence. I can take it.
"I would suggest that the role of the Federalist is akin to the role of commentaries when studying scripture."
But which came first...Scripture or the commentaries? Clearly the commentaries are "commenting" on Scripture, whereas conversely, the Federalist preceded the Constitution. Those commentaries aren't intended to promote acceptance of Scripture because Scripture already existed.
" Likewise the Federalist is a valuable insight into the thoughts of some of the framers of the constitution, but it's not and was never intended to do anything but point people to the constitution."
It was intended to promote acceptance of the Constitution so as to result in its ratification. That was the whole point of publishing those essays.
"One problem I see when considering how much weight to give the federalist is Hamilton. Hamilton was clearly an outlier when it came to his personal convictions regarding the formation of the US."
Hamilton's personal character flaws are totally irrelevant. All that matters with Fed 74 is that with regard to the pardon clause, it's explanatory and provides insight to the intent behind it.
"None of this is to diminish the place of the Federalist in the historical context of the founding, but as with many things context is important."
And I explained its historical context. It was written to convince those uncertain about ratifying the Constitution that they should, and even if the only Federalists were Madison, Hamilton and Jay, the did influence those uncertain people to ratify the Constitution. (The anti-Federalists influenced the addition of the Bill of Rights)
As regards the pardon power, it can't be claimed ratification would have taken place without such a detailed explanation of intent, especially as it argued against a legislative pardoning authority, which the anti-Federalists preferred. The current authority won the day and it can't be rationally argued that Fed 74 played no role as the compelling argument and defense of it.
By the way...we both possess our fair share of obstinacy in arguing our positions. I just want to say that I have absolutely no problem with it. We both maintain it in want of a compelling counter argument and I'll step out on a limb and insist we're each honorable enough to admit the other has that argument when it is presented. Our own virtual stammering in the face of it is a fairly reliable hint.
You complained, I stopped. That you seem to need to justify your complaints, seems superfluous.
"Not true at all"
Yes, 4 is a small minority.
"The Federalist Papers were written to support the ratification of the Constitution, specifically in New York. Whether they succeeded in this mission is questionable. Separate ratification proceedings took place in each state, and the essays were not reliably reprinted outside of New York; furthermore, by the time the series was well underway, a number of important states had already ratified it, for instance Pennsylvania on December 12. New York held out until July 26; certainly The Federalist was more important there than anywhere else, but Furtwangler argues that it "could hardly rival other major forces in the ratification contests"—specifically, these forces included the personal influence of well-known Federalists, for instance Hamilton and Jay, and Anti-Federalists, including Governor George Clinton.[32] Further, by the time New York came to a vote, ten states had already ratified the Constitution and it had thus already passed—only nine states had to ratify it for the new government to be established among them; the ratification by Virginia, the tenth state, placed pressure on New York to ratify. In light of that, Furtwangler observes, "New York's refusal would make that state an odd outsider."
Given the time frame of their writing and the lack of publication outside of NY, it seems a stretch to conclude that the Federalist was a significant issue in getting it passed.
" And that not every argument in each and every one of them (no Bill of Rights necessary) succeeded doesn't change that."
This is an interesting point. You claim that the Federalist is essential for understanding the intent of the founders and the deeper meaning of the constitution, yet this is a great example of where Hamilton was dead wrong.
Hypothetically, if the Federalist is given the weight you suggest, it would be possible to overturn the Bill of Rights (a part of the constitution) by appealing to the intent of Hamilton. But that would be insane, hence my contention that the Federalist is subordinate to the constitution.
I believe it, because it was True and it made no sense.
"Acting honorably in performing the duties of president seems a given expectation."
Interesting hunch. Suggesting interpreting the supreme law of the land based on how one seems to interpret an undefined, unstated, term that isn't actually present.
If you were only suggesting that it was "most likely", you might have a point.
Actually the Federalist did not precede the writing of the constitution, which was started May 25th and finished September 17, 1787. The Federalist was started as a response to two letters published in late September and October of 1787. The final installment was not written until April 1788. The constitution was ratified in June of 1788. Given the nature of the dissemination of the articles (newspapers in NY), it's most likely that they Federalist was not even widely distributed throughout much of the nation by the time the states voted. Certainly not the entirety of it. Given the fact that the Federalist was a response to criticism of the FINISHING of the final text constitution, and that those responses came after it was finished, it is impossible for something that was started after to have preceded what that which was finished first.
Given that the Federalist was started after the constitution was written, and was intended as support and explanation of the constitution, the comparison seems apt although not perfect. You are correct that it was intended to promote ratification of the finished constitution. Yet it was written after it, and was never intended to be treated as law.
If "honor" is Truly so embedded in the explanation of the pardon, then an examination of Hamilton's sense of honor seems entirely appropriate. As does Hamilton's egotistic insistence that the Bill of Rights was unnecessary among other things.
Given that Federalist 74 was not published until March of 1788 and that 6 of the 9 necessary states had already ratified it, and given the lag before it would have been widely circulated outside of NY, it's unlikely that this specific issue made a huge amount of difference.
Again, I'm not suggesting that they had no influence. I am suggesting that the federalist is not law, as in the constitution. It did not predate the constitution. It was the work of 4 individuals, pushing an agenda (federalism), not the work of the convention. Again, valuable but not authoritative.
"Humanity and good policy conspire to dictate, that the benign prerogative of pardoning should be as little as possible fettered or embarrassed."
Alexander Hamilton Federalist 74
I'll say again, that I'm not discounting your argument (except where it's factually wrong) as much as I am your insistence that your argument is the only possible conclusion that can be drawn. Which, given that the #74 quote by Hamilton, seems to tend toward supporting my position...
I never said the Federalist preceded the writing of the Constitution. I said it preceded ratification of it.
There are many people who understand concepts like right/wrong, honor and character without being exemplary models of them. I don't see where Hamilton's personal foibles matters here, except the belief stating such bolsters your argument.
You continue to speak of my "insistence" that my argument is the only possible conclusion that can be drawn. So I'll state here as I've stated elsewhere: I'm perfectly correct until I see a better conclusion or argument. There. Now you can dispense with this concern and focus on providing that better conclusion or argument and we can discuss if your doing so means I have to accept it as superior just because you did.
"whereas conversely, the Federalist preceded the Constitution"
Except, as your own words demonstrate, you didn't. However, as I pointed out, the Federalist was started after the states started to vote and wasn't finished before 6 or 9 states had ratified. Given that 74 was written after 6 states had ratified, it's a great leap to suggest that it (or the issue of the pardon power was particularly significant) in those 6. Given that it was likely GW's support that turned VA and NY was reluctant to lose face, it's a stretch to suggest that 74 specifically was of critical importance to ratification.
Interesting take. That Hamilton's lack of honor in so many of his relationships and actions should be ignored when basing your claim on an inference of others. I'd think that Hamilton's honor, especially in his public life, would certainly be a factor. Unless you're suggesting that Hamilton expected subsequent presidents (noting that he had a strong desire to ascend to the presidency himself) to hold themselves to a much higher standard of honor than he possessed.
It's always helpful when you support what I've said. You act as though one opinion piece from the AS is somehow definitive and beyond questioning. I've provided quotes from Hamilton and others that refute your position, I've pointed out that simply looking at the dates and timeline undermines your contention that the Federalist as a whole and 74 specifically, played a huge role in ratification.
But you continue to think that you are "perfectly correct" because you've offered one piece that you've adopted as gospel Truth. You've offered nothing except the opinions of others, hardly definitive, even if interesting. At best you've offered one credible option, not a definitive proof that excludes any other hypothesis.
https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/constellations/index.php/constellations/article/view/10500/8082
"Yet the extent to which they played a role in convincing citizens and delegates at the time remains unclear."
"Throughout and leading up to New York's convention, however, it can be shown that the Federalist Papers did not significantly affect the ultimate ratification of the Constitution. The first indicator of the Papers' failure to influence was their inaccessibility outside of New York City."
https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/federalist-papers
"The Federalist Papers represented only one facet in an on-going debate about what the newly forming government in America should look like and how it would govern. Although it is uncertain precisely how much The Federalist Papers affected the ratification of the Constitution, they were considered by many at the time—and continue to be considered—one of the greatest works of American political philosophy."
https://bensguide.gpo.gov/m-federalist-papers-1787-1788
"Even though they did not play a significant role in New York's decision to ratify the Constitution, the Federalist Papers remain an important collection today because they offer insight into the intentions of key individuals who debated the elements of the Constitution."
If they did not play a significant role in NY where they were widely available, how much of a role could they have played in GA, SC, and other more remote states?
https://www.history.com/topics/early-us/federalist-papers
"Despite their outsized influence in the years to come, and their importance today as touchstones for understanding the Constitution and the founding principles of the U.S. government, the essays published as The Federalist in 1788 saw limited circulation outside of New York at the time they were written. They also fell short of convincing many New York voters, who sent far more Antifederalists than Federalists to the state ratification convention."
"AI Overview
Learn more
Federalist No. 74, written by Alexander Hamilton, likely had a moderate impact on the ratification of the Constitution, primarily by clarifying and defending the President's power to command the military and grant pardons, which were key concerns for some during the ratification debates, particularly in New York where the Federalist Papers were primarily aimed; however, the exact extent of its influence is debated by historians due to the difficulty in isolating its specific effect from the broader impact of the Federalist Papers as a whole. "
It seems, from a bit of research, that the Federalist did have some effect on ratification butt that the exact effect is unclear at best. There seems little indication that 74 in particular had much effect at all. The timing of the writings, the inefficiency of their dissemination, and the lack of fast reliable communication all seem to have mitigated their effectiveness at the time of ratification. (Noting that 2/3rds of the necessary states had ratified before 74 was written, it seems that the best case that could possibly be made is that 74 might have had some impact on the last 1/3 of necessary ratifications.)
I re read the opinion piece you linked to, and am less convinced than ever the he makes the ironclad case you suppose he does. It's intriguing and makes some compelling points, but hardly definitive. The, IMO, most compelling point (especially in light of rumors of more pardons for unspecified potential crimes) is that a pardon should have a 1:1 relationship to a specific crime the recipient has been convicted of. I tend to agree in principle, yet he also cites multiple precedent setting pardons given previously. Again, I'm not arguing that your one source is absolutely wrong, just that there is room for other conclusions.
Your one piece does actually make a case for the use of the preemptive pardon and for it's value. Since that's essentially what has people upset about Hunter's pardon, and his point is that usually preemptive pardons are for a greater good than just the one who is pardoned. I'd agree that keeping the rest of the Biden family safe is not a good reason to pardon Hunter. As I pointed out earlier, Hunter's pardon might actually have the opposite effect as intended because it means he can't claim his 5th amendment privilege if questioned about others activities.
"Except, as your own words demonstrate, you didn't."
As my own words demonstrate, I most certainly did. From December 4, 2024 at 1:31 PM, where I wrote:
"The Federalist Papers preceded ratification of the Constitution."
I'll get to the rest of your comments later, as I don't have time to peruse them at the moment. A cursory look indicates arguing against that which I've not put forth. We'll see.
I literally quoted you from the specific comment I was responding to, but feel free to look elsewhere. FYI, the Federalist in general and 74 in particular did not precede the ratification in at least 6 states, and as noted likely didn't significantly effect ratification in others. Notably NY, where they would have been more widely circulated than anywhere else.
I honestly don't care. I've mostly provided external sources for the known information I've previously mentioned, that you've not responded to. I've also pointed out that your single source, opinion piece, doesn't really make the firm argument you seem to think and certainly doesn't justify your excessive confidence in your opinion being the correct opinion. So reply, don't reply, I really don't care. I suspect that you'll continue to refer to the one opinion piece you've linked to, not engage with the sources I've provided, and mostly repeat yourself.
But, if you want to keep beating, the horse isn't going anywhere.
FYI, Hamilton was kind of an ass and it's likely that his personality was a negative when it came to ratification in NY. Of course, it was widely known that he was Publius and the subterfuge wouldn't have prevented those who disliked him from opposing his positions.
Post a Comment