He’s just trying to lull you into a false sense of security.
Why on earth would any prison official refuse a lawful order? I worked in a prison. I never received a pardon order from the President or Governor. But we received release orders from judges. And when we did we took off the prisoner’s handcuffs and let him walk out of the courtroom. Or if he was inside the prison we let him walk out the front door. (In reality, most released prisoners voluntarily go through the normal release process. It takes a couple of days but we arrange for transportation and such. But they have the option of leaving immediately if they wish.)
Not much.
I recall, years ago, reading that there are over 100,000 convicted murderers are walking the streets in the US.
There’s no precedent for the present President, but, being bonkers, Obama’s Constitutional clout could quash qualms of the convicts’ confiners.
Why would they? Are all prison officials lawful evil or lawful stupid? Is it really so bad in this country that so many people can’t tell the difference between law and morality? Heck, a defense of thinking the document must be forged if it’s letting out everyone should last for a while, and I’m sure there are delaying tactics.
And, honesty, I would expect the President to be declared insane. It doesn’t matter if he really is. If it would stop this, I’m pretty sure in short order everyone would agree he was insane, and thus unfit.
The only question is, could the VP now acting as president give an executive order that undid the pardon? Or can the action that caused the President to be declared unfit be considered null and void without having to have a huge judicial showdown? Heck, all you’d need is a stay, then you could take forever to do the rest.
Gov. of Illinois changed all the death sentences to life in prison.
Ironically he is now in prison
Judging by the responses to lots of ethics/ legal questions posted here, I’d have to say yes. Most people I work with either correlate, or outright equate what is legal with what is ethical. If it was “bad” then we’d make a law against it. Likewise, many of them demonstrate a rather abysmal understanding of the fluidity of law in this country. While changing law may be difficult, all it truly requires is a vote by the appropriate body. Though the percentage tends be smaller here on the educated, and primarily liberal 'dope, IRL I’ve seen this attitude far more often than is comfortable for me.
This may surprise you but there is a widely held view that locking people up for no reason is both illegal and immoral.
I believe the OP may be thinking of the provisions of Section 4 of the XXV Amendment:
In practice this has been seen as dealing more with such a case as the PotUS were to suffer an illness or injury leaving him partly or fully disabled vis-a-vis decisionmaking faculties. It has been invoked when sitting Presidents have had to be placed under anaesthesia, for instance. It does not however seem to provide for prompt intervention in a scenario of the Boss simply waking up one morning, looking across the South Lawn in the misty dawn light, and like many an otherwise upstanding citizen before him, quietly snapping and going berserk. Although I would hope that there are already contingency plans set up for whenever THAT happens. (“No time to ask, Colonel: you must set fire to the envelope with the nuclear launch codes, or else eat it, immediately!”)
But this is not even that urgent either, so if you tried to invoke it for something like the OP, you’d have something like between two and 25 days of back-and-forth “The President’s done flipped”/“No I haven’t” up and down PA Avenue, on whether the Boss was in full use of his abilities to discharge his duties when the order was issued – and if that means it’s null ab initio, never had effect, or it’s fully lawful and valid though outrageous to some sensibilities. Plus there’s the small detail of …“BTW, everyone non-elected who just said I flipped, you’re fired effective one second ago: there, see, there’s no majority of the Cabinet saying I’ve gone wack.” AFAIK XXV-4 does not protect the principal officers from being replaced while the process runs.
In the example case, the officials of the Federal prison systems probably would have a limited amount of wiggle room to stall until the scene plays out with authority. Could they hold out three weeks? Maybe more if the DoJ officialdom is massively on the side opposing the order. But it’s not unlimited flexibility either. At some point after you verify it’s a real, lawful order, you either do your job or ask to be relieved.
Why wouldn’t they? Morality doesn’t even come up here, except it’s immoral to keep a pardoned person in prison.
No, once the person is pardoned and accepts the pardon, he’s pardoned. He can’t be unpardoned.
Why is the prez given unlimited pardon powers anyway? Were the founding fathers worried that political prisoners would need to be released at every re-election?
What if out of the blue he ordered a nuclear strike on Chicago? Anybody think that order would be unquestionably obeyed?
I think the question here is where would we draw that line? At what point would we simply choose not to follow constitutional orders?
Which side of that line does the release of all federal prisoners fall?
Very interesting thread.
It’s a check on the power of the judicial system. This way there is always a chance of appeal until the sentence is carried out, the inmate dies, or is executed. Prevents the judicial branch from having ultimate power.
I think it’s a recognition that the legal system is not perfect. Judges and juries are obligated to act in accordance with the law - they’re supposed to find somebody guilty even though it may be unjust in the particular circumstances. A President can recognize that somebody technically is guilty of breaking the law but doesn’t deserve to be punished and issue a pardon.
And, as Acid Lamp posted, sometimes judges and juries do the wrong thing. Pardons give an opportunity to correct that.
Here’s Hamilton, from Federalist 74, on the pardon power:
Just to add another point: anything a President signs has to be prepared by someone, reviewed by someone else, re-reviewed, etc. For a very strange or unwise order, this process might take a while. For a no-doubt-about-it-batshit-crazy-we’re-hiding-all-the-sharp-objects-in-the-Oval-Office order, the process will almost certainly take much longer than the process of gathering the VP and Cabinet to start Amendment XXV proceedings. I suppose the Pres could write something in crayon on a napkin and sign it, but the more irregularities, the easier it will be for a court to find it invalid. In this particular case, a determined court might also decide that the President can only issue individual pardons, requiring specific names, thereby dragging the process to a halt.
CoughBush v. GoreCough. I mean, this Conservative court invent specious reasoning to get the result they want? Why, that would be being an ‘activist judge’. Inconceivable!
Except we have a long tradition that pardons don’t require individual names, and that presidents can pardon groups. From the first ever pardon issued by a President of the United States:
From Andrew Johnson’s pardon of Confederates:
From Carter’s pardon of draft dodgers:
Never do that again. Just don’t. It made my nose bleed.
Oh, I beg your pardon.
No, no! Alliteration in these situations is corny… What?
