Oath of Office

DGS49

Diamond Member
Apr 12, 2012
15,657
12,997
2,415
Pittsburgh
When inaugurated, the governor of California swore an oath to protect and defend - among other things - the laws of California.

Imagine for the sake of discussion that California has criminal laws that provide for the Death Penalty, and that those laws have passed muster with both the California Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court as to,their constitutionality.

And suppose certain persons have been accused of capital crimes under those constitutional laws, have been tried, convicted, and have had their convictions and their death sentences affirmed by all of the relevant appellate courts.

Now, what would you say about a governor who publicly declares that he will nullify those death penalty sentences because he believes, totally without evidence, that some known percentage of the convicts would be executed in error, because they are "innocent"?

In fact, death penalty opponents have thus far not been able to come up with a single case in the entire U.S. in the past 80 years where a factually-innocent person was executed. All 50 states plus D.C.

Has he violated his oath of office? Would that warrant impeachment?

Are you willing to answer honestly, even if you personally oppose tne death penalty?
 
When inaugurated, the governor of California swore an oath to protect and defend - among other things - the laws of California.

Imagine for the sake of discussion that California has criminal laws that provide for the Death Penalty, and that those laws have passed muster with both the California Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court as to,their constitutionality.

And suppose certain persons have been accused of capital crimes under those constitutional laws, have been tried, convicted, and have had their convictions and their death sentences affirmed by all of the relevant appellate courts.

Now, what would you say about a governor who publicly declares that he will nullify those death penalty sentences because he believes, totally without evidence, that some known percentage of the convicts would be executed in error, because they are "innocent"?

In fact, death penalty opponents have thus far not been able to come up with a single case in the entire U.S. in the past 80 years where a factually-innocent person was executed. All 50 states plus D.C.

Has he violated his oath of office? Would that warrant impeachment?

Are you willing to answer honestly, even if you personally oppose tne death penalty?

Are you denying that people have been freed from death row?

As for the death penalty...in it's current incarnation; it's useless as a deterrent. It does stop repeat offenders though; LOL
 
When inaugurated, the governor of California swore an oath to protect and defend - among other things - the laws of California.

Imagine for the sake of discussion that California has criminal laws that provide for the Death Penalty, and that those laws have passed muster with both the California Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court as to,their constitutionality.

And suppose certain persons have been accused of capital crimes under those constitutional laws, have been tried, convicted, and have had their convictions and their death sentences affirmed by all of the relevant appellate courts.

Now, what would you say about a governor who publicly declares that he will nullify those death penalty sentences because he believes, totally without evidence, that some known percentage of the convicts would be executed in error, because they are "innocent"?

In fact, death penalty opponents have thus far not been able to come up with a single case in the entire U.S. in the past 80 years where a factually-innocent person was executed. All 50 states plus D.C.

Has he violated his oath of office? Would that warrant impeachment?

Are you willing to answer honestly, even if you personally oppose tne death penalty?

The governor didn't nullify the Death Penalty, he placed a moratorium on future executions.

As for an innocent person being executed, the fact is some who have been on death row for decades have had DNA proved they are innocent.
 
When inaugurated, the governor of California swore an oath to protect and defend - among other things - the laws of California.

Imagine for the sake of discussion that California has criminal laws that provide for the Death Penalty, and that those laws have passed muster with both the California Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court as to,their constitutionality.

And suppose certain persons have been accused of capital crimes under those constitutional laws, have been tried, convicted, and have had their convictions and their death sentences affirmed by all of the relevant appellate courts.

Now, what would you say about a governor who publicly declares that he will nullify those death penalty sentences because he believes, totally without evidence, that some known percentage of the convicts would be executed in error, because they are "innocent"?

In fact, death penalty opponents have thus far not been able to come up with a single case in the entire U.S. in the past 80 years where a factually-innocent person was executed. All 50 states plus D.C.

Has he violated his oath of office? Would that warrant impeachment?

Are you willing to answer honestly, even if you personally oppose tne death penalty?
His judgement is what people voted for. You can always vote it out... but I bet you won't.
 
Read Without Remorse by Vonda Pelto. She was the death row psychologist in Los Angeles.

Whether you personally are for or against the death penalty, Gavin Newsom should never have run for governor if he knew he had no interest in following the laws passed by the voters.

It would be best if he would follow Gray Davis into recall.
 
I have known a few death row inmates, Roy Norris, Larry Bittaker and William Bonin. I also knew Charles Manson. They all needed killing but quickly.
 
First: Many people on Death Row have been exonerated, or had their convictions overturned (which is not the same thing). No question about it. But still, nobody has ever come up with a case where a factually-innocent person was executed. ALL of the cases listed above are cases where later evidence or testimony "cast doubt" on the guilt of the person executed. That and a subway token will get you to the next station. Keep in mind that there is a whole ARMY of people opposed to the death penalty and they would LOVE to find clear DNA evidence (or comparable) to PROVE the innocence of someone who was executed but so far, no cigar. So far, "cast doubt" is as far as they can claim.

Second: It is true that the Death Penalty, in its current form, is not much of a deterrent to capital crimes (except to the extent that the dead fukker won't be killing anyone else). But that is because Leftists in the court system have made it an unfunny joke, with an "expedited" case taking 8-10 years in appeals. Start executing people on television the day after their sentencing, and we'll see if it is a significant deterrent.
 
When inaugurated, the governor of California swore an oath to protect and defend - among other things - the laws of California.

Imagine for the sake of discussion that California has criminal laws that provide for the Death Penalty, and that those laws have passed muster with both the California Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court as to,their constitutionality.

And suppose certain persons have been accused of capital crimes under those constitutional laws, have been tried, convicted, and have had their convictions and their death sentences affirmed by all of the relevant appellate courts.

Now, what would you say about a governor who publicly declares that he will nullify those death penalty sentences because he believes, totally without evidence, that some known percentage of the convicts would be executed in error, because they are "innocent"?

In fact, death penalty opponents have thus far not been able to come up with a single case in the entire U.S. in the past 80 years where a factually-innocent person was executed. All 50 states plus D.C.

Has he violated his oath of office? Would that warrant impeachment?

Are you willing to answer honestly, even if you personally oppose tne death penalty?
I do think that it is within the power of a State Governor to commute a sentence.
 
First: Many people on Death Row have been exonerated, or had their convictions overturned (which is not the same thing). No question about it. But still, nobody has ever come up with a case where a factually-innocent person was executed. ALL of the cases listed above are cases where later evidence or testimony "cast doubt" on the guilt of the person executed. That and a subway token will get you to the next station. Keep in mind that there is a whole ARMY of people opposed to the death penalty and they would LOVE to find clear DNA evidence (or comparable) to PROVE the innocence of someone who was executed but so far, no cigar. So far, "cast doubt" is as far as they can claim.

Second: It is true that the Death Penalty, in its current form, is not much of a deterrent to capital crimes (except to the extent that the dead fukker won't be killing anyone else). But that is because Leftists in the court system have made it an unfunny joke, with an "expedited" case taking 8-10 years in appeals. Start executing people on television the day after their sentencing, and we'll see if it is a significant deterrent.

Appeal to Emotion is dismissed. :eusa_hand:
 
We are not talking about commuting a sentence times 700+. Commuting a sentence requires research on the specific case, an analysis of the evidence and findings, and a counter-conclusion based on facts and logic. We are talking about an executive repudiating many statutes which he has sworn to uphold, without regard to the specifics of any of those cases.

That is not within his legitimate powers.
 

Forum List

Back
Top