Well, the Bush administration has attempted to muddle the Constitutional waters once again by granting a pardon and then revoking it at the last minute. Josh Marshall is talking about it. .DailyKos is talking about it. Hell, a whole new blog is talking about it.
Now, I am talking about it.
Okay, this is when you ask who I am. I am a senior Criminal Justice student at St. John's University with a minor in Government and Politics. My GPA is 3.5 and I will begin my graduate study in the field next fall. That said, here is my opinion on the issue.
I have read the many precedents (which you can find in the aforementioned links). It seems that Bush is looking at the physical serving of the official document to the pardon grantee. Basically, the old 'ownership is 9/10 of the law' routine.
However, the pardon is an act. Bush signed the document. The grantee was informed of the decision. The decision was publicized in the major media outlets. To now argue that the grantee was not pardoned because he did not hold the actual document in his hand is absurd.
The official document, to my knowledge, may be picked up personally or sent via mail. If we go down this road, can a pardon lost in the mail be rescinded? What if a person receives a pardon but then loses the original copy? What proof is there that the pardon ever existed if he or she cannot provide the document?
For all I know, Toussie is a scumbag who never deserved the pardon in the first place. But that's not my call. The Constitution gives the president this power.
What pisses me off is how this is just another example of Bush muddying the Constitutional waters. Torture, rendition, unitary executive, VP multi-tasking, war powers, search and seizure, due process, and now pardons.
Is there anything this bunch can't fuck up? I mean, jeez, had they not tried to take the pardon back there would likely be no story at all. Instead, here we are.