|
Edited on Tue Dec-30-08 09:57 PM by Kurt_and_Hunter
I remember it well. At the time Agnew resigned Nixon was already sinking into Watergate and it was recognized that Nixon's VP pick would become President if Nixon were impeached and convicted, or resigned.
And the general reaction was, "yeah... well that sucks. But those are the rules of the thing."
It didn't cross anyone's mind to put forward a theory that Nixon's responsibility of picking a new VP was void because he was suspected of a bunch of crimes, or because his approval ratings were low.
I don't know where this attitude of free-form grab-ass with the rules came from. Has the combination of Clinton impeachment and GW Bush infected the Dems with pug-like contempt for the law? This has nothing to do with whether Blago is a crook. The only pertinent question is, "Is he the Governor of Illinois?" If Charles-freaking-Manson happened to be the Governor of Illinois then it would be his pick to make.
Any system based on a constitution and laws will yield unpopular outcomes sometimes. That's the nature of the thing.
________
On an only tangentially related note, Bush rescinding a pardon is bullshit and I hope it's struck down. The executive pardon power is part of the overall criminal justice system and the idea of revoking a pardon is an insult to the spirit of prohibiting double-jeopardy. When you get a favorable result from the criminal justice system that's supposed to be that. The absurd reduction of the reversible pardon concept is a president letting some people out of jail and a candidate vowing that when elected he will reinstate their convictions and put them back in jail. It's a joke... some guy could be released and re-imprisoned in an eight year cycle for the rest of his life based on who wins elections. That's just not America.
|