Ex-sheriff Joe Arpaio found guilty of criminal contempt of court

[*PhilHos*]

(08-31-2017, 05:52 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Personally, I am someone that sees the Constitution as a living document. I'm not a literalist for the Bible, or the Constitution, and so I am open to challenges like this. I think this, much like many things we have seen occur in the past, were not things our founding fathers could anticipate happening and so we must contextualize the document with our current times.

Yeah, I understand that, but I think an immense deal of care should be taken when making significant changes to the Constitution.

(08-31-2017, 05:52 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Personally, I am someone that sees the Constitution as a living document. I'm not a literalist for the Bible, or the Constitution, and so I am open to challenges like this. I think this, much like many things we have seen occur in the past, were not things our founding fathers could anticipate happening and so we must contextualize the document with our current times. 

All of that being said, the argument being used is that the POTUS has stripped the court of their authority regarding oversight of public officials in violation of the Constitution. So you could say you don't favor a judge or justice doing that to POTUS, but POTUS may have done it to them already. It's going to be an interesting legal debate at the very least.

I get that, but I don't buy it. All he's doing is saying that whomever - in this case, Arpaio - does not have to be punished for his crime. He's not overturning a conviction or saying that a crime wasn't committed. By Trump pardoning Arpaio, he's not saying that the court, in the future, is prohibited from ever doing what they did in Arpaio's case. The argument, as presented in the article, is vague and you can apply it to ANY person that a president has pardoned. And, like I said, would set a dangerous precedent.