Your feedback is important to us!
We invite all our readers to share with us their views and comments about this article.
Disclaimer: Comments submitted by third parties on this site are the sole responsibility of the individual(s) whose content is submitted. The Daily Star accepts no responsibility for the content of comment(s), including, without limitation, any error, omission or inaccuracy therein. Please note that your email address will NOT appear on the site.
Alert: If you are facing problems with posting comments, please note that you must verify your email with Disqus prior to posting a comment. follow this link to make sure your account meets the requirements. (http://bit.ly/vDisqus)
It is U.S. President Donald Trump's recent pardon of Arpaio that currently is spurring heated debate, as it raises fundamental questions about the presidential pardon power that has been a part of U.S. policymaking from the country's birth.In the U.S. Constitution – Article II, Section 2 – America's founders gave a similar power to the president, but with two key limitations.During Barack Obama's presidency, both were prominent figures in the racist "birther" movement that insisted Obama was born outside the U.S., and therefore was not entitled to be president.Unsurprisingly, given its purely ideological basis, Arpaio's pardon was not reviewed in advance by the U.S. Justice Department, as has become customary over the years. Indeed, the DOJ rushed to distance itself from the decision, highlighting how easily Trump can use (or not use) the pardon power to settle his many scores: It is virtually the only power within the criminal justice system that the president can exercise unilaterally. To be sure, Trump's pardon of Arpaio has not created a legal basis for impunity; the pardon power's constitutional limitations prevent that. The pardon power is like a loaded gun.
Should America ever apologize?
FOLLOW THIS ARTICLE