Congress needs to adopt a resolution that makes it impossible for an executive branch offical to disobey the constitution. The resolution prevent the president from giving a pardon.
2006-07-15 13:29:38 · 13 answers · asked by powerball05 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Sure, but I think he would have to know what the Constitution is before he could violate it deliberately.
2006-07-15 15:00:59 · answer #1 · answered by A B 3 · 5⤊ 5⤋
When the Constitiution was written, a set of checks and balances was put into place on each of the three branches. Therefore, no resolution is needed. Also, it would take a Constitutional Amendment to prevent the President from pardoning a person.
2006-07-15 20:34:27 · answer #2 · answered by Salem 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I love you!
I want to take away the authority Congress gave itself after the Civil War to force the appearance of witnesses UNDER OATH
and I want to take away the Presidential power to pardon (the one big mistake made by Alexander Hamilton).
These days in this climate, the only way to hold the President accountable is to have a Congressional majority from the OTHER party. I'm positing that "gridlock" is a necessity to limit federal power.
The only way to hold "W"'s feet to the fire about his constitutional violations is to get a Congressional majority for the other party. That's going to happen in the House but the Senate is a long shot for 2006.
2006-07-15 20:39:35 · answer #3 · answered by urbancoyote 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Any President who violates the Constitution should be held accountable. It could not, however, be any less than an Amendment to the Constitution. That is because the Constitution itself trumps any laws. I had not previously considered this loophole. Interesting. I would think it would be the next President who pardons this one.
2006-07-15 20:35:57 · answer #4 · answered by Dave C 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No!! The Senate already refused to convict a president who lied under oath. Clearly a violation of his oath of office and therefore a violation of his constitutional duties.
Besides. It may not be un-Constitutional until the 9 black robes says it is. Therefore, accountability can't be applied ex post facto.
The U.S. Constitution's Article 1 Section 9, C.3 states: 'No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
An ex post facto law is a law passed after the occurrence of an event or action which retrospectively changes the legal consequences of the event or action.
For example, I can't be held liable for this answer. It was legal when I sent it. Neither Congress nor SCOTUS nor States may make it illegal after I hit ENTER.
2006-07-15 20:56:02 · answer #5 · answered by SPLATT 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes because the constitution is what keeps us a free society. If our leader is violating that, what is to stop him from ignoring it all together and becoming a dictator? Thankfully we have two other branches to try and keep the president in check but what happens when they all support what the president is doing when he violates the constitution? Its a threat to democracy... I hope that makes sense
2006-07-15 20:34:09 · answer #6 · answered by run like whoa 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You have two issues here
1. The Senate can always impeach a President
2. Ofcourse the President should have the power to pardon.. The Justice system can scew up
2006-07-15 20:38:17 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wouldn't "disobeying the constitution" be breaking the law? There is already a system in place for this. Presidents who break the law get impeached.
2006-07-15 20:35:07 · answer #8 · answered by _me_ 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, absolutely. Anybody should be held accountable for breaking the law, especially if he is the leader of the country.
2006-07-15 20:34:01 · answer #9 · answered by tkron31 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The government according to many have been over stepping their authority for years. It is unlikely it will ever change. 1st rule of power when you got it keep it. The IRS is one place many feel the government has over stepped its authority.
2006-07-15 20:42:04 · answer #10 · answered by viablerenewables 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋