Well I was wrong: Grits predicted Governor Perry would issue 10 or more pardons this week after issuing none for the rest of the year. I was right to expect some, but guessed high: He issued eight - all for trivial, long ago offenses. Three of the eight don't even live in Texas anymore. While in general Grits calls "Humbug!" on Christmastime pardons, this was a missed opportunity. Grits had suggested that if the Governor issued 23 pardons or more, he would ensure positive national coverage by pardoning more people in one day than Barack Obama has granted clemency in his entire tenure. (Perry surpassed that mark in two prior years.) But instead, with Mitt Romney on the campaign trail saying he won't grant pardons at all, Governor Perry decided to play it safe. Disappointing.
MORE: From the Texas Tribune.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
10 comments:
He probably had another "Oops" moment and couldn't remember who he was intending to pardon when he got to #9! Poor guy! Give him a break, it's Christmas for Ch***t's sake!
Can Perry even spell Pardon?
It is unrealistic on your part, Grits, to expect anything less from such a Governor
Tedbyrd, this is a governor who granted clemency to 73 people in 2003; in his first ten years in office he pardoned 10 or more people in six of them. I set my expectations (and my erroneous prediction) based expressly on his pardon record and the dynamics of the national political race, not any bias for against him.
Grits,
A little interesting history for you.
As part of the original writing of the United States Constitution, the founders included Art. VI, Clause II and III, the first being the "supremacy clause" the second and Oath requirement banning "religious tests". (I have no problem with religion by the way)
When the first Congress of the United States came into session for the very first time, their first piece of legislation was 1 Stat. 23
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Statutes_at_Large/Volume_1/1st_Congress/1st_Session/Chapter_1
The law requires a a separate and specifically word Oath of Loyalty to the Federal Constitution...to be taken and filed along with the State Oath of Office.
Today, the language of the Oath itself is found at 4 U.S.C. Section 101 and the filing requirement at 4 U.S.C. Section 102.
Perry hasn't complied with this law, a fact that can be verified by visiting the Secretary of States Office and checking for yourself, and is therefore barred by it from "entering into the duties of his office".
Seems like he must have just "forgot" a mental handicap he seems overly endowed with.
You can read more at my website http://www.wilcoshysterbuster.com
at the page "We done need no steenken Oaths!"
Daniel Simon
512-228-9416
Merry Christmas, Scott, to you and your family.
S. Lowery
I was disappointed that Perry didn't pardon anyone for anything other than trivial crap. He could have shown a sense of fairness if he'd selected a few cases where people had either been convicted under dubious or improper conditions, or he could have opted to take a few people who've gone on to do heroic things and yet still have a felony conviction.
I guess being too much of a politician means he thinks people will label him "soft" for being fair.
Daniel:
Neither of the USC sections you cited bar anyone from entering the duties of the person's office.
Wow Anonymous,
You apparently didn't look at 4 U.S.C. Section 101, or you do not read very well. Admittedly in my last post I paraphrased by saying his lack of Oath bars him from "entering into" rather that from "execute(ing) the duties of his Office". Let's just say he cannot legally function as Governor without complying, unless he is above the law.
Incidentally, there is abundant Texas "case law" that says the acts of a Judge who has not taken the Texas Constitutional Oath word for work and in a timely fashion are VOID. It is a requirement of office.
Here is 4 U.S.C. Section 101
Every member of a State legislature, and every executive and
judicial officer of a State, shall, before he proceeds to execute
the duties of his office, take an oath in the following form, to
wit: "I, A B, do solemnly swear that I will support the
Constitution of the United States."
IN THE FORM FOLLOWING, TO WIT: "to wit" is somewhat archaic legal language still seen sometimes in Statutes, Court Opinions and other legal matters...that means more or less; "namely, or just like this", as in one case I read, where it said "the defendant committed murder with a deadly weapon, to wit: a knife". Meaning, not a gun, not a club, not poison...a knife.
I typed that last post in a hurry and did not verify the EXACT language of the Oath...but Perry and all other State Officials are required to take the EXACT Oath above and Perry and certain others I have checked have not...and certain ones I have confronted and asked to comply have refused...why is that Anonymous? Are our Officials above the law?
Daniel Simon
Hey Texas. You're village idiot is loose and wandering around. Please come get him.
Post a Comment