June 2, 2014
House votes to preclude funding for clemency efforts as well as for pot prosecutions
I was amazed and pleased upon learning that a majority of members of the US House of Representative voted for an appropriations measure that would preclude the Justice Department from using funds to prevent states from implementing their medical marijuana laws (basics here and here). But I was also amazed and peturbed upon learning that a majority of members of the US House of Representative also voted for an appropriations measure that would preclude the Justice Department from using funds to have more DOJ attorneys screen clemency petitions in conjunction with efforts to bring old excessive sentences in line with current laws and norms. This MSNBC article, headlined "House Republicans vote to block Obama’s new pardon attorneys," explains:
The U.S. House voted Thursday to block the Obama administration’s plan to add staff to the Pardon Attorney’s office, a potential barrier to the Justice Department’s efforts to scale back some lengthy prison sentences handed down in the war on drugs. The measure, sponsored by Republican North Carolina Rep. George Holding, bans any funding for staff who would conduct the administration’s planned review of applications from inmates seeking early release.
The measure is attached to a new Justice Department funding bill that passed on a party-line vote of 219-189. A Justice Department official told msnbc that Attorney General Eric Holder considers the new funding restriction “absurd.”
The department in April launched a new effort to review more clemency applications and expand the criteria for releasing inmates, particularly those still imprisoned under harsh sentencing laws that have since been reformed. Holding said he pushed the funding ban because he believes Obama is intent on using his presidential pardon power “solely on behalf of drug offenders.”
Speaking on the House floor, Holding also accused the administration of bulking up the Pardon Attorney’s office as a “political ploy” in order to “bypass Congress” and drug laws that are still on the books.
House Democrats objected, saying the funding ban would hamper the research and expertise of the Pardon Office. “If there were a resignation in the office and if you needed to have a temporary detailee, it would be prohibited from this amendment,” Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. Chakah Fattah said. “The last thing we would want is the President using such extraordinary power without the benefit of proper staff and due diligence,” he added.
Virginia Republican Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the House Judiciary Committee chairman, said that while “no one denies the constitutional power of the president to grant clemency,” the Justice Department’s encouragement of “thousands” of clemency appeals is an improper use of the clemency power. “Congress should not fund that office for that purpose,” Goodlatte said.
To date, President Obama has granted ten clemency petitions out of 11,218 clemency petitions received.
I am inclined to use the word asinine rather than absurd to describe this funding restriction and vote. Congress ought to pass a resolution if it is eager to provide advice or express concerns about how Prez Obama (or any other president for that matter) may be planning to use the constitutional clemency authority. But to prevent DOJ from having adequate resources to better screen the huge number of petitions coming from a huge number of federal prisoners serving now reformed sentences seems more likely to encourage misuse rather than better use of the clemency power. Sigh.
June 2, 2014 at 10:06 AM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference House votes to preclude funding for clemency efforts as well as for pot prosecutions:
nice lived this part!
"The U.S. House voted Thursday to block the Obama administration’s plan to add staff to the Pardon Attorney’s office,"
they fuked up big time. They don't seem to realize there is no law that requires him to use this office in the first place. He can simply pick names at random and issue a pardon if he wants. Now they have given him the legal excuse to do so.
Not to mention the nice blurb in the news. "I had no choice but to do this since the Congress decided to strip the pardon office of funding."
Posted by: rodsmith | Jun 2, 2014 12:06:08 PM
Whos on first.
Signed Dont know much
Posted by: Midwest Guy | Jun 3, 2014 1:08:39 AM
I was perplexed about the reason for denying the appropriations for the Pardon Attorneys Office. These Congressmen believed that the use of clemency for a category of inmates was usurping the power of Congress. That was strange since Congress does not have the power of clemency, only the President.
The next rational expressed was that this was an unprecedented use of clemency and no President had ever done that before. That statement denies any knowledge of systemic clemency or amnesty that has been granted to groups of offenders by Presidents since Washington.
Posted by: beth | Jun 3, 2014 3:47:10 PM