MyFox
 

willie's Blog

by willie from Mesa, Arizona

Last Post 41 days, 7 hours Ago


Ramos and Compean
Jul 27, 2007 | 11:29 PM
Category: News
Report This Post

Ramos and Compean

Representative Ted Poe, R-Texas, sponsored an amendment that was co-sponsored by Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., and Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., aimed at prohibiting the federal government from spending any federal funds to keep Ramos and Compean imprisoned.

As WND reported, the amendment had first been proposed by Tancredo.

It was attached to H.R. 3093, the Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008.

The amendment, which passed the House by an overwhelming bipartisan voice vote, is designed to be a "get-out-of-jail now" maneuver forcing the Bureau of Prisons to release the two agents.

"This amendment represents a novel concept," Poe told WND. "But the House had a lively, emotional, and intense debate on the floor and the more the debate proceeded the more I'm convinced we are winning a lot of people over."

"Agents Ramos and Compean, serving 11- and 12-year prison sentences for wounding a drug smuggler running more than 750 pounds of marijuana across the border, have now spent more than six months in federal custody," Hunter said in a press release. "The conviction of these agents represents the most severe injustice I have ever seen and, without question, qualifies for a presidential pardon."

H.R. 3093 is currently being debated in the House, with a final vote expected to be taken this week. 

7 Comments |  Add a Comment

Member Comments Total Comments: 7
Page 1 of 1
KellerKowboy read my blog view my photos
Jul 28, 2007 | 12:16 AM

It certainly is a novel concept. I'm not sure just how the Senate might feel about congress actually intefering with the judicial process, but we'll see.

The last report I recall indicated the President was waiting - as he did in the Scooter Libby matter - for the appellate court to rule (they've been petitioned to overturn the convictions) before any action on the request for a full pardon. While that's aggravating to sympathizers, it would seem to be the most prudent course to take.
Warrior_for_Truth read my blog
Jul 28, 2007 | 10:21 AM

KellerKowboy is correct that this is a novel concept. When I read the story first I found it to be a very creative attempt at a solution to a very ugly problem. Even if it does pass the legislative process successfully, I'm not sure it would pass Constitutional muster in the courts. My suspicion would be that the US Attorneys who prosecuted the case would use Article I, Sec. 9 & 10 of the Constitution (dealing with Bills of Attainder) in reverse fashion to suggest that, as the congress is forbidden to find an individual or group of individuals guilty of a crime without a jury trial, it is also forbidden to prevent the prosecution of punishment in a case where a duely empaneled jury found a person or persons guilty of a crime. I suspect their argument might be that to do so would be congressional obstruction of justice.

I'm equally convinced that what President Bush is waiting for is not judicial action on this, but rather political cover. I have no doubt that when he is sure there is "bi-partisan" support in congress for the pardon of these officers, he will act in such a way.
willie read my blog
Jul 28, 2007 | 10:42 AM

True enough. I think the main point for the Dems anyway is to embarass Bush, but I hope these 2 get released. It is the most outrageous bunch of BS I ever saw. Sutton and Gonzales should fry over this. Would have been way better for Bush to pardon Ramos and Compean BEFORE he pardoned Libby.
KellerKowboy read my blog view my photos
Jul 28, 2007 | 11:51 AM

I disagree totally with that line of thinking, willie. I would be really angry if the President stepped in BEFORE the appeal process had been completed. A appeal is pending and it would be folly for the President to act before that process is completed. Had they NOT appealed; that would be a totally different scenario.

WFT, excellent legal descriptors.
chardoney read my blog view my photos
Jul 28, 2007 | 1:44 PM

"I think the main point for the Dems anyway is to embarrass Bush"... I too think that's why the Dems are jumping on this and their only reason. They care nothing for law enforce and love illegals.

These 2 men didn't receive justice.. their 'crime' called for a suspension, reprimand, or firing... period. That's what the 'law' called for. They need to be OUT. And start putting the filthy illegals drug dealers IN prison.
Kestrel read my blog view my photos
Jul 28, 2007 | 8:14 PM

It's my understanding this attachment to HR3093 restricts funds allocated to the Federal bureau of Prisons, which has nothing to do with a bill of attainder as in Art.1 Sec.9 or in Sec.10 which addresses Powers prohibited by the States.

I think it best speaks for it's self:

Sec. 702. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be used to enforce--

(1) the judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas in the case of United States v. Ignacio Ramos, Et Al. (No. EP:05-CR-856-KC) decided March 8, 2006; and(2) the sentences imposed by the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas in the case of United States v. Ignacio Ramos, Et Al. (No. EP:05-CR-856-KC) on October 19, 2006.

Congress does have the right to cut funds.
willie read my blog
Jul 28, 2007 | 8:29 PM

WOW! That would be something.

Have you heard the song that was written about them? Pretty cool.
Page 1 of 1


Write your comment below:




willie

I moved to Arizona from New Mexico in October of 2000.I have 2 grown sons. The oldest lives in Mesa and the youngest lives in Apache Junction.All of us have a myspace account as do my brother, sister, nieces, nephews from New Mexico. Computers are a great way to stay in touch. I believe in God, family and country.

Member Since: 10/2/2006


 

RSS: XMLWhat is RSS?