Emergency legislation to block a Libby pardon?

[Atman]

Oh, wait...Bush would just issue a signing statement ignoring it. Never mind.

.

[Jacobin]

1. that would be unconstitutional

[Kagemusha]

2. Yes, it would. Power to pardon vested solely in the President.

Would've been unconstitutional to stop Bill Clinton's pardons too or anyone else's.

[waiting for hope]

3. And since when did that matter?

Oh yeah, back in the Ken Star days....

[Horse with no Name]

4. There is a term that prohibits legislating for individuals

But I'll be damned if I can think of it right now.

[waiting for hope]

5. Terri Schiavo?

[Horse with no Name]

8. That was illegal too

;)

[Atman]

9. The GOP is all about "illegal"

Do one thing, and do it well.

.

[Atman]

7. Schiavo-izing?

Oops, that can't be it.

.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

10. It's called a Bill of Attainder

Any nill or legislation cannot be passed to benefit a certain individual, named or unnamed, or a certain group of individuals.

Jebbie got the Lege in Florida to pass a bill of attainder to benefit Terri Schiavo's family. This was unconstitutional and illegal. It had their names on it. I noticed that NOBODY in the media mentioned this.

And yes I am a lawyer (Non practicing but you can call me Doctor!!)

[Horse with no Name]

11. Thank you-thank you-thank you.

I couldn't for the life of me think of what it was.

[NYC Liberal]

12. Bills of Attainder only refers to the legislature finding individuals guilty of a crime,

circumventing the judicial system and the courts.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/47.html

''Bills of attainder . . . are such special acts of the legislature, as inflict capital punishments upon persons supposed to be guilty of high offences, such as treason and felony, without any conviction in the ordinary course of judicial proceedings. If an act inflicts a milder degree of punishment than death, it is called a bill of pains and penalties. . . . In such cases, the legislature assumes judicial magistracy, pronouncing upon the guilt of the party without any of the common forms and guards of trial, and satisfying itself with proofs, when such proofs are within its reach, whether they are conformable to the rules of evidence, or not. In short, in all such cases, the legislature exercises the highest power of sovereignty, and what may be properly deemed an irresponsible despotic discretion, being governed solely by what it deems political necessity or expediency, and too often under the influence of unreasonable fears, or unfounded suspicions.'' 1701 The phrase ''bill of attainder,'' as used in this clause and in clause 1 of Sec. 10, applies to bills of pains and penalties as well as to the traditional bills of attainder. 1702

The prohibition embodied in this clause is not to be strictly and narrowly construed in the context of traditional forms but is to be interpreted in accordance with the designs of the framers so as to preclude trial by legislature, a violation of the separation of powers concept. 1703 The clause thus prohibits all legislative acts, ''no matter what their form, that apply either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without a judicial trial. . . .''

[BlooInBloo]

14. Historically, prohibiting attaintedness was to directly protect the public from the executive...

... Over time, it became a means of protecting the judicial from the legislative (and thus derivatively the public).

[havocmom]

6. How 'bout emergency legislation for protective custody?

He might need that.

[malaise]

13. Have you seen Reid's and Pelosi's

statements since the verdict.