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.
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...)
Agreed. This is why an expedited appeal should be made to SCOTUS or the applicable circuit court, not disregarding the separation of powers,
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.