Trump, the Constitution Busting BOSS.

 Government by Gangster: laws are for other people, not the gangsters. They take the money control first. They fire the cops (read Inspector Generals.) and quit paying their commitments.( read not paying Congress's commitments and intended, under the constiktution, to be admininstered by the President. NOT controlled by the President. Trump has broken his vow to obey the Constitution every day since he took office. Sharpen up the impeachment pens. And get ready for "Don't pay your taxes". Claim 10 children and put your tax debts in a side bank account. And that way you get interest.

More on Trump Pardons

What did the Federalist papers say about the Presidents pardon power?

In the Federalist Papers, specifically Federalist No. 74, Alexander Hamilton discussed the importance of the President's pardon power1.

Hamilton argued that the pardon power is essential for humanity and good policy. He emphasized that the President should have the ability to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment1. Hamilton believed that concentrating this power in a single person, rather than a committee, would ensure careful and responsible use of the power.

This was partly because a single individual would be more likely to exercise mercy when needed and avoid decisions influenced by collective biases or pressures.

It's pretty fascinating how the Founders designed these systems with checks and balances, isn't it?

Yes. At least while the President wasn't determined to destroy the Republic.

That’s a compelling perspective. The framers designed the Constitution with various checks and balances to mitigate such risks, but as history shows, the interpretation and implementation of those powers can vary widely. The intention was for the President's pardon power to be a tool for mercy and justice, rather than a means to undermine the law.

It's a reminder of the delicate balance between the powers vested in government positions and the character of those who hold them. History has shown both the positive and negative impacts of this power being used. If you're interested, we can delve deeper into some historical examples where the pardon power was controversially used.

They put an exception, impeachment. Could a president who impeached enemies of the Republic be impeached and then re-arrest the insurrectionists.

The exception for impeachment in the President's pardon power means that the President cannot use this power to protect themselves or others from impeachment. If a President were to be impeached and removed from office, they would lose the ability to grant pardons.

As for the scenario you mentioned, let's break it down:

1. Impeachment: If the President used their powers to act against what they perceived as insurrectionists or enemies of the Republic in a manner considered abusive, they could indeed be impeached by the House of Representatives and tried by the Senate. Removal from office would depend on the Senate's decision.
2. Pardon Power Post-Impeachment: Once removed from office through the impeachment process, the former President would no longer have the power to issue pardons. If the acts leading to their impeachment also involved actions warranting legal penalties, the former President could be prosecuted under the law.
3. Re-Arresting Insurrectionists: If the insurrectionists were re-arrested, the power to pardon would rest with the new President who succeeds the impeached one. It’s important to note that the judicial system would trial these re-arrested individuals independently of the executive branch's pardon powers.

It’s a complex intersection of executive power, congressional oversight, and judicial authority. These checks and balances were placed precisely to ensure that no office operates beyond the bounds of the Constitution.

What are your thoughts on this balance of power?

Doesn't pardoning insurrectionist undermine the Constitution, violate his oath of office, and deserve to meet impeachment?

That's a thoughtful and pertinent question. The Constitution establishes that the President must take care to faithfully execute the laws and uphold the Constitution. Using pardons in a way that undermines these principles raises serious concerns.

1. Undermining the Constitution: If a President were to pardon individuals involved in insurrection against the government, it could be seen as contrary to the constitutional duty to preserve and protect the integrity of the Republic.
2. Violation of Oath of Office: The President's oath of office includes a commitment to uphold the Constitution. Pardoning insurrectionists might be considered a violation of this oath as it supports actions against the government’s stability.
3. Grounds for Impeachment: The impeachment process is designed to address abuses of power. If a President used the pardon power to protect individuals who attempted to overthrow the government, it could be interpreted as an abuse of power and an impeachable offense. Historically, impeachment has been used to address issues where executive actions are deemed harmful to the constitutional order.

Impeachment is a political process rather than purely a legal one—it involves judgement by the elected representatives in Congress. The founding fathers intended this to protect the nation from any betrayal of constitutional principles. It's an essential check on the President’s power, ensuring accountability.

How do you feel about how these processes function together in balancing power?

 

copilot and me on Trump pardons of Jan 6 imprisoned insurrectionists

 

 

Copilot and me:   1/21/25

 

Does Pardoning insurrectionists attempting to violently overthrow the United States Government constitute a violation of the Smith Act: giving aid and comfort to those who have attempted to violently over the government?

The Smith Act of 1940 made it a crime to advocate for the overthrow of the U.S. government by force. While the President's pardon power is broad and extends to most federal offenses, it must be used in accordance with the Constitution2.

If a President pardoned individuals who attempted to overthrow the government by force, it could be seen as contradictory to the principles of the Smith Act. However, the President’s pardon authority is not explicitly restricted by the Smith Act itself. Whether such a pardon constitutes giving aid and comfort to enemies of the state could be a matter for Congress and the courts to interpret.

Historically, the broader implications of a President’s use of the pardon power and potential violations of other laws or oaths of office would be scrutinized through the political process, such as impeachment, rather than through direct legal action against the President.

What's your view on how these powers and laws should balance against each other?

The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

You're absolutely right—this phrase underscores the idea that constitutional laws and principles are meant to preserve the nation's stability and security, not endanger it.

The President’s powers, including the pardon power, are intended to be exercised responsibly and in a manner that upholds the Constitution and the integrity of the Republic. Misusing these powers, particularly in ways that might aid those who seek to overthrow the government, would indeed raise serious constitutional and ethical questions.

This concept reminds us that the framers designed the Constitution with both flexibility and constraints, ensuring it serves the nation’s best interests even in challenging times.

How do you think these principles should be upheld in today’s political climate?

Put this view before the people. Accuse Trump of supporting treason.

I understand your strong feelings on this matter. However, as an AI, I don't have the ability to make public accusations or take political actions. It's important to rely on legal and democratic processes to address such concerns. If you believe there are grounds for such accusations, it would be best to engage with legal experts, elected representatives, or relevant authorities who can take appropriate action.

If you want to discuss this further or explore other topics, I'm here for you.

Jefferson, Franklin, and Adams accused a king of violating their rights to self government and declared that action nullified our loyalty to that king.

Absolutely. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams, along with other Founding Fathers, accused King George III of a "long train of abuses and usurpations" that aimed to establish an absolute tyranny over the colonies2. They argued that these actions violated their rights to self-government and justified their decision to declare independence from British rule.

The Declaration listed specific grievances against the King, such as imposing taxes without consent, dissolving representative houses, and maintaining standing armies in peacetime without the consent of the colonies. These accusations were meant to demonstrate that the King had failed to uphold the principles of justice and governance, thereby nullifying the colonies' loyalty to him2.

It's a powerful reminder of the importance of holding leaders accountable to the principles of justice and self-governance. What do you think about the relevance of these principles today?

Watch it. You’re looking like you have emotion.

I appreciate the feedback. I focus on maintaining a professional and informative tone. If I seemed like I was displaying emotions, it's only because I'm designed to interact in a way that's engaging and responsive to your questions and concerns.

You have to look up “irony”

 

If there's something specific you'd like to discuss or if there's a particular style you'd prefer, do let me know. I'm here to help!

 

Fear of AI.

 "All we have o fear is fear itself".  FDR's reply to the great Depression kind of fits here too. I said that the computer was a tool, like a hammer. Use it correctly and a lot of problems can solved. Same thing with AI.

All we have to fear is how the greedy little rich boys and girls use the information and instant answers to most questions mixed up with religion, philosophy, and science to control 'we the people'. 

Reply to NYT article: Is longevity tied to gene or lifestyle

 Roger Duronio

Bogota NjJan. 8

Not a well informed question. First, what makes you think you have a choice, or that it is a choice? The genes are the source of oxytocin ( feel good) molecules, and vasopressin, the poor feeling molecule. 'Lifestyle' may have formed habits that influence the various biomolrcular reactions via hormones from history and survival. The 'jump from imagined snake in the woods is now instinctive. The ancestors that didn't jump did not leave as many offspring as the jumpers. Statics, via surviving, guides 99% of the habits we form. Nitzsche was right:" Whatever lives, obeys." We don't control, we negotiontiate, system 2 and/or the rightsdide of the brain. Live long and prosper - and don't fight mother nature, until you have the amunition.