Outrageous!

[hcjilson]

President Bush commutes the prison sentence of Scooter Libby! Is there any end to the arrogance of this NITWIT? He better be careful, he's beginning to errode the support of the remaining 26% of the population.

[DragonLensmanWV]

President Bush commutes the prison sentence of Scooter Libby! Is there any end to the arrogance of this NITWIT? He better be careful, he's beginning to errode the support of the remaining 26% of the population.

Why are you surprised? I'm only surprised he didn't give him a full pardon.

[chip anderson]

Dragon:

Did he ever have your support? Bush's supporters wondered why he didn't pardon Scooter sooner. Scooter didn't actuall commit a crime (unless you concider a politician lying to be a crime, and then we all know where Bill and Hillary would be).
And did you notice the people Clinton pardoned? Did you notice Clinton's pardons were for conciderable fees? Clinton's friends were left in jail to keep thier mouths shut.

Chip

[hcjilson]

Chip, this goes a lot further than Clinton. What W has done is covering up both his, and Cheney's complicity in outing Valarie Plame, which in itself was nothing more than an attempt to get back at her husband (Jim Wilson) for telling congress that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.

Our president has placed himself, and his administration above the law and if you don't think this is ourtageous, you may be the only one left who supports him.

When conservative talking heads do their best to defend "w" they always refer to Clinton. This is not only a weak defense it just doesn't apply. You'll have to go all the way back to Richard M. Nixon to find someone who showed this amount of lack of respect for the American public.

[1968]

Scooter didn't actuall commit a crime (unless you concider a politician lying to be a crime, and then we all know where Bill and Hillary would be).Where is "integrity" when we need it? Lying is not necessarily a crime, but lying under oath is indeed a crime. On this second point the law makes no exceptions for politicians or members of any political party.

[fvc2020]

I have to agreed w/chip:) Scooter's life is in ruin. He has lost any professional apirations he ever had. As for the President pardoning him, he didn't he comunted the prision sentence. The fine and probation is still there.

As for the "Clintons"..Some of the not so nice people I have ever heard of...They pardoned a whole bunch of people(which by the way)is the right of any sitting president.

As for Valerie Plame(whatever)...she and her husband are just not nice people either....How he got the job to go to Africa is beyond me, but they are two of the most promoting people I have ever heard of...

It is very frustrating lately on this board, when views of everyone is not respected...I wish more people listened to both sides of each story, then just listening to whatever side makes them the happiest...

I want to share an expression that I love that explains it all

"There's his side and Her side and then there's the truth"

Christina

[chip anderson]

1968 You made one for Bill and for Hillery. Don't cry too loud as I can show you lots and lots of democrats that received nothing but a slap on the wrist for same or similar or even worse crimes.
For the record I am not a Bush Fan or supporter, he has swung far too far to the left and made too many friends (like Teddy) for my support.

But I can't fault him for supporting his friends, especially if thier "crimes" were committed in his support. I never could understand why Nixon didn't pardon the plumbers in WaterGate, especially G. Gordon Liddy.

Chip

[gemstone]

What most people do not realize is that what Libby was charged with had nothing to do with the charges they were trying to prosecute SOMEbody, ANYbody with. They couldn't prove the charges so the Democrat "cronies" decided to charge Libby with misconduct during the trial. Talk about sore http://www.panthersplanet.net/style_emoticons/default/loser.gif I am fairly sure he will receive a full pardon before too long. This is what pardons are for. (Not freeing criminals).

[shanbaum]

Actually, under 18 U.S.C. 1001, lying (not under oath) to a federal official is a crime. A felony.

[shanbaum]

They couldn't prove the charges so the Democrat "cronies" decided to charge Libby with misconduct during the trial.



1) The prosecutor in the case was (and is) a Republican, appointed by Skippy himself;

2) Libby wasn't charged for "misconduct during the trial". He was charged with, and convicted of, having lied to FBI agents (see prior post about lying to federal officials) during the investigation into the Plame outing.

[chip anderson]

Shanebaum:
I think Liddy was convicted of refusing to testify, or to say anything whatever reguarding the case. i.e. "Failure to communicate"

[shanbaum]

Shanebaum:
I think Liddy was convicted of refusing to testify, or to say anything whatever reguarding the case. i.e. "Failure to communicate"

As usual, Chip, you have no idea what you're talking about.


p.s. While I'm sure you won't get through this, it's theoretically possible for you to read the indictment here:

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-images/upload/indictments.pdf

[chip anderson]

Shanebaum:
I said Liddy not Libby. Liddy was the watergate FBI agent who wouldn't testify and did quite a few years in various federal prisons as a result.

Chip

[shanbaum]

Shanebaum:
I said Liddy not Libby. Liddy was the watergate FBI agent who wouldn't testify and did quite a few years in various federal prisons as a result.

Chip

Oh. Sorry.

You're right that Gordo didn't talk, but of course, he didn't have to (see, U.S. Constitution, Fifth Amendment). He was convicted of burglary, conspiracy, and illegal wiretapping.

[For-Life]

It is a shame when any President, democratic, republican, does it.

Ridiculous abuse of powers and every single one of them do it.

[1968]

1968 You made one for Bill and for Hillery. Don't cry too loud as I can show you lots and lots of democrats that received nothing but a slap on the wrist for same or similar or even worse crimes. Check your premises. I certainly made no exception for Bill and Hillary. Nor am I a Democrat. Just like their Republican counterparts, the Democrats in Washington know how this game works so you can bet they will only feign a little outrage over Libby.

[MarcE]

Chip, this goes a lot further than Clinton. What W has done is covering up both his, and Cheney's complicity in outing Valarie Plame, which in itself was nothing more than an attempt to get back at her husband (Jim Wilson) for telling congress that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.

Our president has placed himself, and his administration above the law and if you don't think this is ourtageous, you may be the only one left who supports him.


You are exactly right. But it's nothing new. I wasn't surprised a bit. Libby's job was to protect the president and the vice-president. He did that by lying and/or obstructing justice. He did his job and W paid him for it. Pretty straightforward and not surprising. All presidents and congressmen too, for the most part, are above the law. And Clinton pulled equally dubious deals, for his "supporters" that were still alive after he left office.

I used to be an idealist, then I because a realist, then a cynic. I have now progressed to post-cynical views. Maybe not healthy, but it helps me cope.

[rinselberg]

This goes a lot further than Clinton. What W has done is covering up both his and Cheney's complicity in "outing" [covert CIA employee] Valerie Plame, which ... was nothing more [or less] than an attempt to get back at her husband (Joe Wilson) for telling Congress that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction ...
Joe Wilson didn't prove or say that Iraq did not have WMD.

He did go to Niger and cast some (perhaps considerable) doubt on the idea that Iraq had tried to obtain uranium in the form of "yellowcake" from Niger.

I can understand and also tentatively agree with certain observations that "Iraq" has been mismanaged.

I can understand how the "outing" of Valerie Plame was both illegal and ultimately, "unhelpful".

But to say that "Joe Wilson told Congress that Iraq did not have WMD" is too sweeping a statement.

"Iraq may or may not have had WMD capabilities." "It seemed that Saddam et al certainly had a continuing interest in acquiring WMD capabilities, come hell or high water." No one's yet convinced me that the decision to invade Iraq was, in and of itself, a mistake or a bad decision.

We're on a tragedy-freighted road that is only one of a number of such roads that could have been selected.

I don't see a "good road" anywhere on the map. Not on the map that is in effect today. And not on the map that was in effect when the President started the military operation to remove Saddam et al.

[gemstone]

In any case, Liddy was convicted because the prosecuters could not make a case. It is very sad the point politics have gotten to this hateful stage. It surprises me they get anything done on the hill. PARDON!PARDON!PARDON!PARDON!PARDON!PARDON!PARDON!PARDON!PARD ON!PARDON!PARDON!PARDON!PARDON!

[gemstone]

Oh. Sorry.

You're right that Gordo didn't talk, but of course, he didn't have to (see, U.S. Constitution, Fifth Amendment). He was convicted of burglary, conspiracy, and illegal wiretapping.
Liddy,Olie and Libby. True American HEROS! And Rosemary Woods.

[shanbaum]

In any case, Liddy was convicted because the prosecuters could not make a case.



Thank you. I read this and immediately achieved enlightenment. You didn't even have to chop off my hand. Flowers are once again flowers.

[hcjilson]

that Iraq did not have any enriched urainium, and ergo no nuclear capability. You may recall the president's inability to pronounce the word. Comedians had a field day with it.....but that was long before the body count we have today. Mismanaged you say??? You can take that to the bank.

Gemstone.....Rosemary didn't do it it was a lot more inside than her...she just took the heat.

[karen]

hmmm.....I admit to knowing just enough to be one of those ridiculous sweeping statement kinds of folk on this subject but I think if Paris has to do some of her time he should have had to do some of his;)....I mean they had enough evidence to convict him, right? or am I just being Pollyanna-ish in thinking that the system did it's job properly. I think it is sad that someone like me who has always lined up to vote and been proud to do so feels almost to sick of it all to vote in the next election.

As a very conservative Republican I have to say that I am growing VERY weary of W and his crud. While I agree that the bigger politicians tend to have difficulty telling the truth I am getting sick of it. Can't anyone just tell the freaking truth and stay true to what they said they beleive in????

[gemstone]

that Iraq did not have any enriched **uranium (misspelled fixed here by jim stone), and ergo no nuclear capability. You may recall the president's inability to pronounce the word. Comedians had a field day with it.....but that was long before the body count we have today. Mismanaged you say??? You can take that to the bank.

Gemstone.....Rosemary didn't do it it was a lot more inside than her...she just took the heat.
The Rosemary thing was a joke. I wish I could have remembered Ollie North's secretary.

So now you want to change the subject. Well OK. I agree with most of the congress then and now that we needed to attack Iraq, before they developed nukes. (The old you can't handle the truth thing). Think what it would have been like if we'd waited until after. You may find out in Iran. Sooner or later we are going to have to defend ourselves against radical Islam. You need to study what Islam is all about. Here is a good place to start.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=islam+law

I agree that the war in Iraq is "mismanaged". We need more offense,more weapons and bigger bombs. We need to expand. We should suspend Geneva convention rules until our foes agree to them.

[gemstone]

Anyone wonder why not a full pardon?



It's coming. Two for the price of one. GW has nothing to lose now. He will NOT be our next president.

[Pete Hanlin]

Presidents have the ability to pardon criminals- many have chosen to do so in their final days in office.

As Karen mentioned, I'm not particularly enamored with this administration. At the same time, this seems like a pretty routine deal- its not like the criminal in question is a danger to society or anything.

At this point, there are only two candidates that will raise my interest in the 2008 election to the point where I'll bother to vote in it (which is a rather dismaying- since I've voted in every election for which I've been eligible). Basically, if the Dems run Sen. Clinton I'll go out and vote for whomever is running against her- otherwise, I'll stay at home and turn in early. Conversely, if the Reps run Sen. McCain, I'll probably vote for the Democrat just to see what it feels like.

If it comes down to McCain vs. Clinton, I'll probably take the day off and sit around in black pajamas all day...

[rbaker]

Presidential pardons are an executive privilege given presidents and state governors. They are a routine matter, completely legitimate and usually number in the thousands per administration. A lot of presidential libraries are built on donations received from individuals who have been pardoned.

Now that all of the usual suspects have checked in with their vitriolic tirades we may stop and wonder if its time to get back to steering the ship of state.

[Judy Canty]

I wish I could have remembered Ollie North's secretary.


Fawn Hall

[Robert Martellaro]

And did you notice the people Clinton pardoned?
ChipYup. One of Clinton's last acts as President was to pardon scumbag-mobster-traitor Mark Rich. And Rich had the best lawyer that dirty money could buy- Scooter Libby.

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2005/10/scooter-libby-marc-rich-connection.html

[For-Life]

Yes and the Clinton pardon was wrong.

Do two wrongs make a right? Wasn't part of the reason why you guys voted for Bush was that you were upset with the Democrats' wrongs?

I know this is law, but maybe the law needs to change. Maybe you guys have to hold the politicians accountable for their abuse of freedoms.

[gemstone]

Yes and the Clinton pardon was wrong.

Do two wrongs make a right? Wasn't part of the reason why you guys voted for Bush was that you were upset with the Democrats' wrongs?

I know this is law, but maybe the law needs to change. Maybe you guys have to hold the politicians accountable for their abuse of freedoms.
But Libby should be pardoned.

[For-Life]

But Libby should be pardoned.

I disagree with that one. I do not buy the "liberal conspiracy" behind it. Libby was tried and found guilty. Just like Paris Hilton had to do time, so should Libby. This just means that we have opened more doors to corruption and deceit.

[chip anderson]

For Life:

"We Guys voted for Bush because we felt he would make a much better president than Kerry." He probably did and is.
I personally wanted Steve Forbes who would have I'm sure would have been much better than both of them. But he was and ugly looking baby faced rich guy and didn't get the nomination.
Whatever votes the Republicans get in the next election, most of them will be votes against Hillary or Obama assuming either gets the nomination which seems likely.
Some of us liked our country as it was and somewhat as it still is and will oppose socialism and communism at every opportunity.

Chip

[For-Life]

For Life:

"We Guys voted for Bush because we felt he would make a much better president than Kerry." He probably did and is.
I personally wanted Steve Forbes who would have I'm sure would have been much better than both of them. But he was and ugly looking baby faced rich guy and didn't get the nomination.
Whatever votes the Republicans get in the next election, most of them will be votes against Hillary or Obama assuming either gets the nomination which seems likely.
Some of us liked our country as it was and somewhat as it still is and will oppose socialism and communism at every opportunity.

Chip

What about Gore?

[chip anderson]

Same story.

[gemstone]

Gore will never get party support.
Libby was charged because they could not find anyone to stick the treason charges. He was not charged with anything to do with leaking information. They figured he lied if they couldn't charge anyone so the Kangaroo court pinned him with that. He will be paedoned. And should be.

[For-Life]

Gore will never get party support.
Libby was charged because they could not find anyone to stick the treason charges. He was not charged with anything to do with leaking information. They figured he lied if they couldn't charge anyone so the Kangaroo court pinned him with that. He will be paedoned. And should be.

Should Bush step in on every decision and go over every head in decisions that he subjectively does not like? Many people believe this is a right of justice and it is not morally correct for Bush to step over those subjective opinions.

[gemstone]

You have already said that you don't buy the democrat witch hunt theory. I disagree. You must believe that their was a political bias in this conviction for my answer to that question to make since to you.

[For-Life]

You have already said that you don't buy the democrat witch hunt theory. I disagree. You must believe that their was a political bias in this conviction for my answer to that question to make since to you.

No, I do not believe that everything is conspired and the fault of liberals

[gemstone]

No, I do not believe that everything is conspired and the fault of liberals
I can agree with that. Not your previous statement. "Everything" is kind of an absolute discription. In this case I am very sure that it was a witch hunt from the start.

[shanbaum]

You have already said that you don't buy the democrat witch hunt theory. I disagree. You must believe that their was a political bias in this conviction for my answer to that question to make since to you.

And whose political bias was it supposed to be? The Republican special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald? He was the one who ultimately had the discretion to bring, or not to bring, any charges.

Or maybe it was the judge - another Republican, appointed by Bush? Find a comment by any authoritative source who relates a single instance in which he exhibited a bias of any kind.

Just who do you think had the authority to make this happen, who was biased?

You're right; one would have to believe that there was a political bias at work here for any of your comments to make sense. But the burden is on you to propose at least one biased individual who could have influenced the process, who might have influenced the process.

Do that - name this remarkably powerful Democrat (or Democrats), whose actions led to Libby's conviction. Do that, or pipe down.

[gemstone]

If it was no democrats, there would never have been a trial or investigation. There will be a pardon. Bets?

[shanbaum]

If it was no democrats, there would never have been a trial or investigation. There will be a pardon. Bets?

To borrow a phrase from Condi Rice, no one could imagine the lawbreaking by this administration that would go uninvestigated, not to mention unpunished, were there no opposition. But the fact that investigations occur is hardly evidence of a "witch hunt".

I do expect a pardon. Why the communtation first, and the pardon later, appears to be a great mystery, unless someone in the administration was so ill-informed as to think that the pardon would prevent Libby from "taking the fifth" in some other proceeding (which isn't true, at least, it isn't helpful). Of course, that presumes that the administration is concerned that an imprisoned Libby might sing.

I doubt that; my guess is, this is just another typically, and thoroughly, incompetent act.

[For-Life]

To borrow a phrase from Condi Rice, no one could imagine the lawbreaking by this administration that would go uninvestigated, not to mention unpunished, were there no opposition. But the fact that investigations occur is hardly evidence of a "witch hunt".

I do expect a pardon. Why the communtation first, and the pardon later, appears to be a great mystery, unless someone in the administration was so ill-informed as to think that the pardon would prevent Libby from "taking the fifth" in some other proceeding (which isn't true). Of course, that presumes that the administration is concerned that an imprisoned Libby might sing.

I doubt that; my guess is, this is just another typically, and thoroughly, incompetent act.

well said, it was not because it was the democrats, but because laws were broken.

[gemstone]

Was TOO! :p











I guess this is where we are.

[Pete Hanlin]

You know, perhaps the President figured "What the hey, my approval rating is already a dismal 30%- and I'm obviously not going to run for another election- so I might as well give out a 'get out of jail free' card (well, not quite free, but...)."

The only way to put a positive spin on a dismal 30% approval number is to note that Congress is faring even worse in public opinion right now (not that pollsters are finding the public wants to go back to a GOP Congress either, apparently, Americans are pretty much at the height of cynicism when it comes to their government right now).

Just to prove political lunacy exists on both sides of the aisle, Representative Conyers (D-Mich) is opening hearings regarding the commuting of Libby's sentence (I guess Conyers figures "What the hey, we hold hearings over everything else...").

Meanwhile, former President Clinton is busy explaning how this pardon is different from the 140 or so pardons doled out in the waning hours of his administration (so far, it seems his rationale for the difference is "The pardons granted by me were- well, granted by me... so they're okay- but other Presidents shouldn't do the same, cause they're- well, not me."

231 years later, the "political experiment" that is our representative republic isn't going so well... I'm sure Sens. McCain and/or Clinton can straighten it all out for us. :rolleyes:

[For-Life]

I cannot even believe that the Clinton's are opening their mouths on this one.

[ksquared]

http://news.bostonherald.com/images/holbert/holbert20070704.jpg

[shanbaum]

You need to understand: we've been carrying those signs for years, and they're directed towards Bush and Cheney, not Libby.

[Bill West]

In spite of the liberals in the press and the "liberal idiots"in general, he has the power and the good sense to free this man.
Whine and whine.

[For-Life]

In spite of the liberals in the press and the "liberal idiots"in general, he has the power and the good sense to free this man.
Whine and whine.

So if Bush released Saddam Hussien when he was still alive, you would be happy with that?
Shame and shame.

[rinselberg]

In spite of the liberals in the press and the "liberal idiots"in general, he (W) has the power and the good sense to free this man (Scooter Libby). So ... whine and whine.

So if W (Bush) released Saddam Hussein when Hussein was still alive, you (Bill West) would be happy with that? Shame and shame ...

For-Life: Your post is a non-sequitur. There is nothing in what Bill West posted to suggest that he (Bill West) would be agreeable to President Bush having decided to pardon Saddam Hussein (a hypothetical pardon for which President Bush enjoyed not the slightest legal authority or even any practical means of having effected) - nor is there anything to suggest that Bill West would be agreeable to the President somehow having effected a commutation or reduction of the sentence of execution that was handed down by the Iraqi court against Saddam Hussein.

It seems that For-Life needs to be pardoned!

http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/773/smileyroflmaorf4kf9.gif


http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/9361/6417539252902928ld1.jpg (http://www.optiboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=195673&postcount=721)
James Garner's character swiped a German airplane in the film version of The Great Escape (1963), but that was a fictional embellishment: Nothing like that took place during the real "Great Escape" in 1944.

The Great Escape. What you didn't already know ...
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=195673&postcount=721

[DragonLensmanWV]

I cannot even believe that the Clinton's are opening their mouths on this one.


Me either. That's also why you don't hear about W's presidential pardons in the conservative-dominated press. He's up to 113 so far. And he still has time to go.

[For-Life]

Rinsie, by justifying the decision based on his power to do it does not make it moral or right.

That was the point I was trying to get across.

[rinselberg]

Rinsie, by justifying the decision [to pardon Libby] based on his [President's] power to [issue pardons and commutations] does not make it moral or right. That was the point I was trying to get across.Perhaps you did. But Bill West cited the President's "good sense" in making the decision to commute the sentence of Scooter Libby. That's the point that Mr. West was trying to make.

[shanbaum]

That's the point that Mr. West was trying to make.




Thanks for clearing that up. I was having trouble discerning it amongst the invective.

[chip anderson]

Actually after Saddam got into Iraqi custody Bush didn't have authority to pardon him even if he wanted to. Now as to whether or not he had the power? Probably.
Besides Exclusive pardons at state and Federal level seem to meet only the following categories:
1) Those that have been wrongly convicted, or unduly prosecute.
2) Those that can afford to "Buy" a pardon.
3) Those that are close friends or associates of the Executive or his associates.
4) Those that for reasons of deeds or just age an poor health are no longer a threat to society.
5) Those that for whom political pressure has been so great, pardon seems to be the wisest course of action to make the problem go away.

Also as I read it an executive with pardon powers need have no justification for those he pardons. There is no recourse to be taken if the pardon is for "the wrong reasons." I think Presidents and Governor (depending who's jurisdiction) can actually pardon anyone for no reason at all if so inclined.

Theoretically, Charles Manson, and Ted Bundee could be released with full pardon tomorrow. As to the fate of whatever idiot pardoning them, this might me doubtful.

Chip:eek:

[Spexvet]

...
Also as I read it an executive with pardon powers need have no justification for those he pardons. There is no recourse to be taken if the pardon is for "the wrong reasons." I think Presidents and Governor (depending who's jurisdiction) can actually pardon anyone for no reason at all if so inclined.

Theoretically, Charles Manson, and Ted Bundee could be released with full pardon tomorrow. As to the fate of whatever idiot pardoning them, this might me doubtful.

Chip:eek:

Are you trying to say that since he needs no justification, it's ok?

[For-Life]

Actually after Saddam got into Iraqi custody Bush didn't have authority to pardon him even if he wanted to. Now as to whether or not he had the power? Probably.
Besides Exclusive pardons at state and Federal level seem to meet only the following categories:
1) Those that have been wrongly convicted, or unduly prosecute.
2) Those that can afford to "Buy" a pardon.
3) Those that are close friends or associates of the Executive or his associates.
4) Those that for reasons of deeds or just age an poor health are no longer a threat to society.
5) Those that for whom political pressure has been so great, pardon seems to be the wisest course of action to make the problem go away.

Also as I read it an executive with pardon powers need have no justification for those he pardons. There is no recourse to be taken if the pardon is for "the wrong reasons." I think Presidents and Governor (depending who's jurisdiction) can actually pardon anyone for no reason at all if so inclined.

Theoretically, Charles Manson, and Ted Bundee could be released with full pardon tomorrow. As to the fate of whatever idiot pardoning them, this might me doubtful.

Chip:eek:

Exactly, so should this be changed, since it has been abused by many Presidents?

If we have nothing to hold them accountable it is not a good situation.

[rinselberg]

I think that there's an argument to be made that the President's power to grant pardons and sentence reductions or commutations is part of the system of checks and balances that was carefully drawn up by the framers of the Constitution. The power to grant pardons and commutations is an executive branch check against the power of the judicial branch. If the voters perceive or continue to perceive that these presidential powers are being abused, it should become an issue for the political campaigns. I think that is a better way to address this than to consider new legislation or a new permanent office or panel that would eliminate or restrict the President's options.

[1968]

I think that there's an argument to be made that the President's power to grant pardons and sentence reductions or commutations is part of the system of checks and balances that was carefully drawn up by the framers of the Constitution. The power to grant pardons and commutations is an executive branch check against the power of the judicial branch. If the voters perceive or continue to perceive that these presidential powers are being abused, it should become an issue for the political campaigns. I think that is a better way to address this than to consider new legislation or a new permanent office or panel that would eliminate or restrict the President's options.In the case of a lame duck President, what is the issue that should be part of the political campaigns if not a discussion of legislation that would restrict the President's options?

With that in mind, per http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_pard.html

Finally, there is no review of pardons. This issue, too, was brought up in the Constitutional Convention, that pardons be granted with the consent of the Senate, but the measure was defeated 8-1. Although I suspect that they wanted it to be part of the system of checks and balances, does anyone have any specific information on why the framers of the Constitution rejected that measure?

[shanbaum]

Although I suspect that they wanted it to be part of the system of checks and balances, does anyone have any specific information on why the framers of the Constitution rejected that measure?



The best source for that information is found in James Madison's notes taken at the Constitutional Convention. There's no comment on the 8-1 vote on Roger Sherman's motion, which took place on August 25, 1787. The matter came up again on September 15, when George Mason asserted that "the Senate already has too much power."

I haven't found a really easily searchable online version of Madison's notes, but they're at http://www.constitution.org/dfc/dfc_0000.htm.