Why didn't Obama grant a general amnesty before he was out?

I think he stupidly did not know he could.

Because there was nothing in it for him!

For who, Hillary?

Hahaha...he KNEW they weren't going after her.

For illegals ?

Multiple circuit courts would grant a stay immediately and it would go down in flames as soon a a new SCOTUS gets rolling 

And yet another member of ArfCom who believes the President can wave a wand to do things.  I bet OP thought he could sign an EO that said "All Mexicans are now US citizens.  LOL.  Barry." and it would be law.

Jeebus people.  Was Gov't class like kryptonite to you?

RUN FORREST RUN...

Andrew Johnson



Proclamation 179—Granting Full Pardon and Amnesty for the Offense of Treason Against the United States During the Late Civil War
December 25, 1868

By the President of the United States of America
A Proclamation
Whereas the President of the United States has heretofore set forth several proclamations offering amnesty and pardon to persons who had been or were concerned in the late rebellion against the lawful authority of the Government of the United States, which proclamations were severally issued on the 8th day of December, 1863, on the 26th day of March, 1864, on the 29th day of May, 1865, on the 7th day of September, 1867, and on the 4th day of July, in the present year; and

Whereas the authority of the Federal Government having been reestablished in all the States and Territories within the jurisdiction of the United States, it is believed that such prudential reservations and exceptions as at the dates of said several proclamations were deemed necessary and proper may now be wisely and justly relinquished, and that an universal amnesty and pardon for participation in said rebellion extended to all who have borne any part therein will tend to secure permanent peace, order, and prosperity throughout the land, and to renew and fully restore confidence and fraternal feeling among the whole people, and their respect for and attachment to the National Government, designed by its patriotic founders for the general good:

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Andrew Johnson President of the United States, by virtue of the power and authority in me vested by the Constitution and in the name of the sovereign people of the United States, do hereby proclaim and declare unconditionally and without reservation, to all and to every person who, directly or indirectly, participated in the late insurrection or rebellion a full pardon and amnesty for the offense of treason against the United States or of adhering to their enemies during the late civil war, with restoration of all rights, privileges, and immunities under the Constitution and the laws which have been made in pursuance thereof.

In testimony whereof I have signed these presents with my hand and have caused the seal of the United States to be hereunto affixed.

Done at the city of Washington, the 25th day of December, A. D. 1868, and of the Independence of the United States of America the ninety-third.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

"The President...shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment"

Precisely.  He'd rather have the issue fester and keep Hispanic voters riled up for the next 4-8 years, while he plots and organizes from the sidelines.

People need to realize that Obama is not a leader, he's a revolutionary and he feels more comfortable throwing Molotov cocktails than running a constitutional republic.

Obama had the constitutional authority to grant pardons for violations of federal immigration law.  He chose not to use it.

Still not an amnesty.  Words have meanings.

Here's another one:  http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/carter-pardons-draft-dodgers

Explain how an amnesty would work.  Do you think he could have gone "By Ye Ordere of My Majesty, Alle Browne Peoples Are Herebye Granted Ye Olde Amnesty" and had it stick?  Do you think the presidential pardon is an unlimited power?

In this thread, everyone who doesn't understand that the President can't grant or adjust citizenship, naturalization or immigration status outs themselves.  The most Barry could do (and, which he in fact did) is tell DHS not to actively look for people to deport, and to grant Notices to Appear to many classes of aliens, which merely means (Legally speaking. Practically speaking the difference is huge) that the illegal didn't have to wait for their hearing in detention.  They were still all illegal and deportable.  Of course, not for nothing are they referred to by DHS as "Never to Appears".  I believe the no-show rate for final hearings is something ridiculous.  If you've been paying attention, ICE is getting protested because at these hearings they're actually arresting people instead of just postponing the actual hearing for a couple more years, which had been standard practice the last 4 years at least.

As the examples cited above demonstrate, there have been several mass pardons granted by presidents throughout US history (here's another one).  So a blanket pardon to millions of people who have violated the federal law against entering the US without a visa or passport would have been easy to issue, fully constitutional, and well within his authority.

The pardon probably would have been valid for anyone currently in violation of federal immigration law who didn't have any convictions of any other state or federal law, or who weren't currently under indictment for a violation of any other state or federal law.  It would have created a nightmare for the INS and federal courts to sort out who was eligible and who was not, but it would have been constitutional.

In this thread we find out some people do not understand that the president has the authority to issue presidential pardons to any person for any violation of any federal law, including immigration statutes.

Now, these people who would have received this blanket pardon would not have automatically become citizens, but they would no longer be in violation of federal statutes against entering or remaining in the US illegally.

It would have been a hot mess to sort it all out and figure out what to do with them at that point, and the courts eventually would be involved, but Obama did have that authority under the Constitution.

SCOTUS disagrees with you...


"Some distinction has been made, or attempted to be made, between pardon and amnesty. It is sometimes said that the latter operates as an extinction of the offence of which it is the object, causing it to be forgotten, so far as the public interests are concerned, whilst the former only operates to remove the penalties of the offence. This distinction is not, however, recognized in our law. The Constitution does not use the word 'amnesty;' and, [95 U.S. 149, 153]   except that the term is generally employed where pardon is extended to whole classes or communities, instead of individuals, the distinction between them is one rather of philological interest than of legal importance. At all events, nothing can be gained in the consideration of the question before us by showing that there is any difference in their operation. All the benefits which can result to the claimant from both pardon and amnesty would equally have accrued to him if the term 'pardon' alone had been used in the proclamation of the President. In Klein's case, this court said that pardon included amnesty. 13 Wall. 128.

The rights, privileges, and immunities under the Constitution and laws which the proclamation restored to parties embraced by its terms, are such as all citizens possess and enjoy. That instrument does not declare that any subjects of property are restored with reference to which such rights, privileges, and immunities might be invoked; nor can its language be thus construed without a manifest perversion of its sense.

The effect of a pardon upon the condition and rights of its recipient have been the subject of frequent consideration by this court; and principles have been settled which will solve the question presented for our determination in the case at bar. Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333; Armstrong's Foundry, 6 id. 766; United States v. Padelford, 9 id. 531; United States v. Klein, 13 id. 128; Armstrong v. United States, id. 155; Pargoud v. United States, id. 156; Carlisle v. United States, 16 id. 147; Osborn v. United States, 91 U.S. 474 . A pardon is an act of grace by which an offender is released from the consequences of his offence, so far as such release is practicable and within control of the pardoning power, or of officers under its direction. It releases the offender from all disabilities imposed by the offence, and restores to him all his civil rights. In contemplation of law, it so far blots out the offence, that afterwards it cannot be imputed to him to prevent the assertion of his legal rights. It gives to him a new credit and capacity, and rehabilitates him to that extent in his former position. But it does not make amends for the past."

Knife v U.S. 1877

Why ruin a completely exploitable political situation? Immigrants are political pawns to Democrats, so are minorities, why do you think they keep inventing minority subgroups to exploit and divide against the nation?

It's not enough to be free and equal, you have to be "special" and "priveleged" now....

Except that the person receiving the pardon has to accept it.  How do somewhere between 11 and 30 million people demonstrate that?  How do they prove they've been here, not arrived the day after?  It's just as easy to assume that they all showed up the day after and deport away (see the current memo on deportation in another thread).  Beyond that, Congress has the ability to hold them in contempt.  "Show me proof you didn't arrive the day after the blanket exemption.  Documents are fake.  You're held in contempt".  If we're making up scenarios that work within the existing system, we might as well swing for the bleachers.

The president can't wave a wand and make it stick.  That's why, in normal situations, mass pardons don't happen.  There's two call outs to EXTREMELY rare instances (repatriated combatants post civil war and draft dodgers post non-war) in the face of how the system actually works.  Those are corner cases that impacted a few thousand or tens of thousands in each case, not 11 to 30 million.  Corner cases are not how everyday things work.  Jeebus.

Still not amnesty.  The presidential pardon doesn't cover state and civil offenses.  You still need Congress to make amnesty happen, like we did in 1986.

Actually, the original link in my post was wrong, it has been corrected now to show yet another example of mass pardons -- this time, to some 60,000 residents of Utah Territory who took up arms against the US Army in 1857.  And I already noted in my post that it would be a huge mess to sort everything out, and would probably have created a Constitutional crisis.

But that doesn't mean he didn't have the authority to do it.  There is no limit specified in the Constitution on the number of people who can receive a pardon from the president at any one time.  None.  Nor are there any federal statutes which are off-limits to the presidential pardon; the only restriction is he can't use it to prevent an impeachment by Congress.  Personally, if I ever became president I'd issue a blanket pardon to anyone in violation of 18 USC 922(g), which would automatically restore the firearms rights of millions of people who had been convicted of a DV misdemeanor prior to the pardon date.  But it would be perfectly constitutional to issue it, even though it might cause a legal mess in the process.

.

No, they do not have to accept a pardon.
The president does not need congress for a pardon or general amnesty.  They can also issue amnesty.  Neither cover "state offenses".  Either the president or congress can grant an amnesty for offenses against the U.S..

...

Chief Justice John Marshall in United States v. Wilson (1833) also commented on the benign aspects of the pardon power: "A pardon is an act of grace, proceeding from the power entrusted with the execution of the laws, which exempts the individual, on whom it is bestowed from the punishment the law inflicts for a crime he has committed. It is the private, though official act of the executive magistrate…." Another purpose of the pardon power focuses not on obtaining justice for the person pardoned, but rather on the public-policy purposes of the government. For instance, James Wilson argued during the Convention that "pardon before conviction might be necessary in order to obtain the testimony of accomplices." The public-policy purposes of the pardon were echoed by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Biddle v. Perovich (1927): "A pardon in our days is not a private act of grace from an individual happening to possess power. It is a part of the constitutional scheme."

Pardons have also been used for the broader public-policy purpose of ensuring peace and tranquility in the case of uprisings and to bring peace after internal conflicts. Its use might be needed in such cases. As Alexander Hamilton argued in The Federalist No. 74, "in seasons of insurrection or rebellion there are often critical moments when a well-timed offer of pardon to the insurgents or rebels may restore the tranquility of the commonwealth; and which, if suffered to pass unimproved, it may never be possible afterwards to recall." Presidents have sought to use the pardon power to overcome or mitigate the effects of major crises that afflicted the polity. President George Washington granted an amnesty to those who participated in the Whiskey Rebellion; Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson issued amnesties to those involved with the Confederates during the Civil War; and Presidents Gerald R. Ford and James Earl Carter granted amnesties to Vietnam-era draft evaders.

The scope of the pardon power remains quite broad, almost plenary. As Justice Stephen Field wrote in Ex parte Garland (1867), "If granted before conviction, it prevents any of the penalties and disabilities consequent upon conviction from attaching [thereto]; if granted after conviction, it removes the penalties and disabilities, and restores him to all his civil rights; it makes him, as it were, a new man, and gives him a new credit and capacity…. A pardon reaches both the punishment prescribed for the offence and the guilt of the offender…so that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offence." A pardon is valid whether accepted or not, because its purposes are primarily public. It is an official act. According to United States v. Klein (1871), Congress cannot limit the President's grant of an amnesty or pardon, but it can grant other or further amnesties itself. "

http://www.heritage.org/report/the-presidents-broad-power-pardon-and-commute

A pardon would absolve those of past crimes not confer citizenship.

But I am surprised he didn't do much more with the Xmas pardons. I am also surprised he didn't pull a Mark Rich pardon.

I think Obama could have pardoned the illegals for breaking immigration law up to January 20.

Obama couldn't change the law, or pardon them for breaking immigration law on January 21 or later.

So Obama pardons wouldn't work for them long term.

Because obama hates freedom

This, pardons can only be granted for past offenses. Remaining in the country illegally would mean they were still in violation of the law so the pardon would have been meaningless.

The only one he cared about was AG Holder. He bailed early enough to let the statue of limitations play out before an investigation could come up with enough evidence for an indictment.

Can you post that law?  Never heard of it.