Me: If the president of the U.S. pardons someone, but the state in which the pardoned person won't release them from prison, could the president legally send in the military to intervene, as Eisenhower did in the Little Rock Crisis of 1957? Please summarize your answer in less than 100 words.
Grok: No, the president cannot legally send the military to directly enforce a pardon, as it's limited to federal crimes and enforced via courts (e.g., habeas corpus), not troops, per the Posse Comitatus Act. However, if a state defies a federal court order enforcing the pardon, creating an insurrection-like obstruction, the president could invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy forces, akin to Eisenhower in Little Rock—though this is extreme and unprecedented for pardons.
So after the State of Colorado defies a federal court order, which they will do, Trump could legally deploy forces to rescue Tina Peters after all.
You're ignoring the very basic fact that Trump’s pardon isn't legal. Presidential pardons only apply to federal convictions.
Peters is in prison over state convictions.
The President simply does not have the authority to pardon state crimes.
So Trump can not legally deploy forces because a US State refuses to comply with a court order that is not legal to begin with.
Go check that out with Grok. Make sure you let Grok know that you're talking about someone imprisoned on state crimes, not federal. That's important, you know.
What the President does, and should have the authority to do, is to ensure Tina Peters' rights under the Bill of Rights are upheld! The state of Colorado's governor is violating her 1st, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendment rights, and the courts should expedite this because of the dire straits Tina Peters is in.
Then the correct response is to address the state of Colorado violating those amendments, NOT trying to give someone who has been convicted of a state crime a federal pardon.
This isn't just whacko bizarro world where you can just ignore our laws as a response of a state violating our laws.
It's like trying to put out a fire by throwing gasoline on it, reasoning that gasoline is a liquid type substance and some liquids are capable of putting out fires, so you can swap out gasoline with water or any other liquid capable of putting out fires, because to you, all liquids are the same. It doesn't work in the real world.
(Liquids being a euphemism for laws here, if you didn't catch that...)
Not through trying to give a Presidential pardon to a state crime conviction. He could well have other avenues to explore, but the rules are extremely clear. A president can not pardon someone for anything other than an federal crime.
It’s all about optics. Trumps supporters expect him to do everything he can to get her out of jail and to prosecute election fraud. Most people won’t pick up on the nuance of the state/federal charges. By doing this he’s done as much as he can publicly for her, and put Colorado in the spotlight, but I don't think it will accomplish anything legally.
Optics doesn't mean something is legally capable of being done. If the objective is appearing to accomplish things rather than actually accomplishing them, then sure, he can pardon her each and every day. Not going to get her out of prison, but I guess it supplies the optics so many people are concerned with.
That’s what I was getting at. This does nothing other than signal the Trump is aware of the situation and is “trying”. The sad fact is that she’s going to be in prison until either 1) the FBI tries and convicts the election fraud, or 2) there is a change in governor.
This isn't something that you have to take someone's word for.
Article II, Section 2, Clause 1- US Constitution
“Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”
Against the United States- which is federal. State laws =/= federal. Remember that whole states rights vs. Federal rights thing? They're not the same.
Here are the Supreme Court cases supporting that:
Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 333 (1866)
– Defines pardon power as applying to “offenses against the United States”
United States v. Klein, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 128 (1871)
– Confirms limits of pardon power within federal jurisdiction
Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915)
– Assumes and applies federal-only scope of presidential pardons
Schick v. Reed, 419 U.S. 256 (1974)
– Reaffirms constitutional source and limits of pardon authority
Ohio Adult Parole Authority v. Woodard, 523 U.S. 272 (1998)
– Discusses clemency power and constitutional constraints (federal context)
Here's where the DOJ supports it
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE – OFFICIAL EXPLANATIONS
DOJ Office of the Pardon Attorney (OPA)
U.S. Department of Justice – Clemency Process
Key language used by DOJ:
“The President’s pardon power extends only to federal offenses.”
“The President cannot pardon state criminal offenses.”
Office of the Pardon Attorney – Frequently Asked Questions
– DOJ states presidential pardons apply only to federal crimes
Justice Manual (formerly U.S. Attorneys’ Manual)
– Clemency and pardon authority defined as federal-only
DOJ Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinions
– Consistently interpret Article II pardon power as limited to federal offenses
So it's not something you have to guess about.
As to something being true just because President Trump said it....I'm not stupid enough to try to prove that wrong here, because it's a sure way to catch a ban. 🤷♀️
But here's something you can do. Don't memory hole this. Don't just forget all about it tomorrow. Keep your eye on what happens.
Defines pardon power as applying to “offenses against the United States”
So her Colorado isn't part of the United States? States have a right to secede from the union? That would make a certain war "illegal murder" then, right?
Dude, that's just nonsensical.
It's like you don't even understand what states rights are or why they're important.
I'll remind you that just a few years ago the Suprene Court put abortion rights into the hands of the states. If you tried to hand wave away the powers of the state in favor of the power of the federal government (exactly like is being done here), then there would be about 99% fewer laws against abortions. Women would be able to get abortions at 24+ weeks for whatever reason they feel like because there's no federal law against that.
Seriously, sometimes I wonder if some of you even bother to think about what you're saying before you say it. (Or type it).
I disagree, the attitude is 100% necessary. Because people don't change bad habits when everyone enables those habits.
Yeah, the whole "wait and see what happens" gambit. Where I am 100% convinced you'll forget all about this in less than a week. Which is what typically happens with this type of thing.
So let's make a deal. Every Friday we check in with each other to see if there has been any movement on this Presidental Pardon. It very rarely takes more than 2 months for someone to be released once a Presidential pardon has been given (if the pardon was legal, anyway). I think it typically takes about 2 weeks in most cases though for many it can be within 24 hours.
So how long do you want to give this "wait and see" (aka "wait and forget all about it") before you give up on it? 3 months? 6? A year? Until the end of President Trump's term in office?
I'm infinitely patient and have no problem doing weekly check ins to prove my point here.
So Trump does not have the power to pardon her in the first place.
So here is the problem everyone is getting wrong.
Yes - Trump can pardon anyone for anything - except impeachment. That doesn't mean pardoning someone for state crimes will work. It won't. But he can pardon them every day and it is not illegal. He doesn't even legally have to write it down or sign it as long as there is evidence that he did it, and not some furry staffer. It just isn't valid for a state crime.
Now - if Tina's CO charges are for breaking a CO law, but there is a Federal law that directed her to do XYZ then the state law should be nullified because it can't take precedence over the Federal law. Just like Trump could send the DEA into CO and arrest all dealers and users (with possession) if he so desired. CO Govt would freak, Boasburg would file an injunction, and Trump would take it directly to SCOTUS - who would have no choice but to rule for Trump since pot is illegal at the Federal level.
I'm sure his team of lawyers are looking at every aspect of this case and will be ready. He didn't just pardon Tina for no reason - something is coming.
You're setting yourself up for a huge disappointment on this. You can't wish your way into a President being able to pardon anyone for anything other than a federal crime. No matter how much you try to shoehorn things into place, it's not going to work.
This is one I don't understand.
Presidents can only pardon federal crimes.
Peters is imprisoned for state convictions.
So Trump does not have the power to pardon her in the first place.
Me: If the president of the U.S. pardons someone, but the state in which the pardoned person won't release them from prison, could the president legally send in the military to intervene, as Eisenhower did in the Little Rock Crisis of 1957? Please summarize your answer in less than 100 words.
Grok: No, the president cannot legally send the military to directly enforce a pardon, as it's limited to federal crimes and enforced via courts (e.g., habeas corpus), not troops, per the Posse Comitatus Act. However, if a state defies a federal court order enforcing the pardon, creating an insurrection-like obstruction, the president could invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy forces, akin to Eisenhower in Little Rock—though this is extreme and unprecedented for pardons.
So after the State of Colorado defies a federal court order, which they will do, Trump could legally deploy forces to rescue Tina Peters after all.
You're ignoring the very basic fact that Trump’s pardon isn't legal. Presidential pardons only apply to federal convictions.
Peters is in prison over state convictions.
The President simply does not have the authority to pardon state crimes.
So Trump can not legally deploy forces because a US State refuses to comply with a court order that is not legal to begin with.
Go check that out with Grok. Make sure you let Grok know that you're talking about someone imprisoned on state crimes, not federal. That's important, you know.
What the President does, and should have the authority to do, is to ensure Tina Peters' rights under the Bill of Rights are upheld! The state of Colorado's governor is violating her 1st, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendment rights, and the courts should expedite this because of the dire straits Tina Peters is in.
Also federal PREA law is being violated from what i hear about her treatment.
Then the correct response is to address the state of Colorado violating those amendments, NOT trying to give someone who has been convicted of a state crime a federal pardon.
This isn't just whacko bizarro world where you can just ignore our laws as a response of a state violating our laws.
It's like trying to put out a fire by throwing gasoline on it, reasoning that gasoline is a liquid type substance and some liquids are capable of putting out fires, so you can swap out gasoline with water or any other liquid capable of putting out fires, because to you, all liquids are the same. It doesn't work in the real world.
(Liquids being a euphemism for laws here, if you didn't catch that...)
Not through trying to give a Presidential pardon to a state crime conviction. He could well have other avenues to explore, but the rules are extremely clear. A president can not pardon someone for anything other than an federal crime.
It’s all about optics. Trumps supporters expect him to do everything he can to get her out of jail and to prosecute election fraud. Most people won’t pick up on the nuance of the state/federal charges. By doing this he’s done as much as he can publicly for her, and put Colorado in the spotlight, but I don't think it will accomplish anything legally.
Optics doesn't mean something is legally capable of being done. If the objective is appearing to accomplish things rather than actually accomplishing them, then sure, he can pardon her each and every day. Not going to get her out of prison, but I guess it supplies the optics so many people are concerned with.
That’s what I was getting at. This does nothing other than signal the Trump is aware of the situation and is “trying”. The sad fact is that she’s going to be in prison until either 1) the FBI tries and convicts the election fraud, or 2) there is a change in governor.
President Trump says he does have the power to pardon her; and others say he doesn't.
Given Trump's track record of winning...
...we'll just call it a tie.
This isn't something that you have to take someone's word for.
Article II, Section 2, Clause 1- US Constitution “Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”
Against the United States- which is federal. State laws =/= federal. Remember that whole states rights vs. Federal rights thing? They're not the same.
Here are the Supreme Court cases supporting that:
Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 333 (1866) – Defines pardon power as applying to “offenses against the United States”
United States v. Klein, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 128 (1871) – Confirms limits of pardon power within federal jurisdiction
Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915) – Assumes and applies federal-only scope of presidential pardons
Schick v. Reed, 419 U.S. 256 (1974) – Reaffirms constitutional source and limits of pardon authority
Ohio Adult Parole Authority v. Woodard, 523 U.S. 272 (1998) – Discusses clemency power and constitutional constraints (federal context)
Here's where the DOJ supports it
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE – OFFICIAL EXPLANATIONS
DOJ Office of the Pardon Attorney (OPA)
U.S. Department of Justice – Clemency Process
Key language used by DOJ:
“The President’s pardon power extends only to federal offenses.”
“The President cannot pardon state criminal offenses.”
Office of the Pardon Attorney – Frequently Asked Questions – DOJ states presidential pardons apply only to federal crimes
Justice Manual (formerly U.S. Attorneys’ Manual) – Clemency and pardon authority defined as federal-only
DOJ Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinions – Consistently interpret Article II pardon power as limited to federal offenses
So it's not something you have to guess about.
As to something being true just because President Trump said it....I'm not stupid enough to try to prove that wrong here, because it's a sure way to catch a ban. 🤷♀️
But here's something you can do. Don't memory hole this. Don't just forget all about it tomorrow. Keep your eye on what happens.
So her Colorado isn't part of the United States? States have a right to secede from the union? That would make a certain war "illegal murder" then, right?
Dude, that's just nonsensical. It's like you don't even understand what states rights are or why they're important.
I'll remind you that just a few years ago the Suprene Court put abortion rights into the hands of the states. If you tried to hand wave away the powers of the state in favor of the power of the federal government (exactly like is being done here), then there would be about 99% fewer laws against abortions. Women would be able to get abortions at 24+ weeks for whatever reason they feel like because there's no federal law against that.
Seriously, sometimes I wonder if some of you even bother to think about what you're saying before you say it. (Or type it).
I didn't downvote, but incidentally the attitude is unnecessary; and my money's still on Trump being proven right in the end regardless.
We'll have to see what happens
I disagree, the attitude is 100% necessary. Because people don't change bad habits when everyone enables those habits.
Yeah, the whole "wait and see what happens" gambit. Where I am 100% convinced you'll forget all about this in less than a week. Which is what typically happens with this type of thing.
So let's make a deal. Every Friday we check in with each other to see if there has been any movement on this Presidental Pardon. It very rarely takes more than 2 months for someone to be released once a Presidential pardon has been given (if the pardon was legal, anyway). I think it typically takes about 2 weeks in most cases though for many it can be within 24 hours.
So how long do you want to give this "wait and see" (aka "wait and forget all about it") before you give up on it? 3 months? 6? A year? Until the end of President Trump's term in office?
I'm infinitely patient and have no problem doing weekly check ins to prove my point here.
You game?
So here is the problem everyone is getting wrong.
Yes - Trump can pardon anyone for anything - except impeachment. That doesn't mean pardoning someone for state crimes will work. It won't. But he can pardon them every day and it is not illegal. He doesn't even legally have to write it down or sign it as long as there is evidence that he did it, and not some furry staffer. It just isn't valid for a state crime.
Now - if Tina's CO charges are for breaking a CO law, but there is a Federal law that directed her to do XYZ then the state law should be nullified because it can't take precedence over the Federal law. Just like Trump could send the DEA into CO and arrest all dealers and users (with possession) if he so desired. CO Govt would freak, Boasburg would file an injunction, and Trump would take it directly to SCOTUS - who would have no choice but to rule for Trump since pot is illegal at the Federal level.
I'm sure his team of lawyers are looking at every aspect of this case and will be ready. He didn't just pardon Tina for no reason - something is coming.
You're setting yourself up for a huge disappointment on this. You can't wish your way into a President being able to pardon anyone for anything other than a federal crime. No matter how much you try to shoehorn things into place, it's not going to work.
Reading comprehension problems?
Good. Glad we agree