Pardon of the PurseFollow

By a voice vote, the House has passed an amendment to an appropriations bill which would prohibit the use of funds to incarcerate US Border Agent Ignacio Ramos who was found guilty of several crimes after shooting an unarmed, fleeing drug smuggling suspect. If passed, it would effectively commute Ramos' sentence since the federal prisons would have no funding available to incarcerate him. The amendment was sponsored by Rep. Ted Poe and co-sponsored by Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo, all Republicans although the amendment obviously had enough bipartisan support to pass. I couldn't find a vote record to see who voted which way, presumably because it was a voice vote.

The bill has yet to clear the Senate or get signed by Bush.

So how about it? We had a couple people earlier who took grave offense to the Democrats trying to use the "power of the purse" to control the war in Iraq as a violation of separation of powers. How about a de facto Congressional commutation of a prison sentence?

Story for further reading if you're so inclinded. Apparently another agent is involved in this but I only looked for the one amendment and whether it's one guy or two is pretty academic.

Edited, Aug 1st 2007 2:58pm by Jophiel

Um, I think the cost in question is for incarcerating the guy.

But I didn't really read the article, so shoot me...or put in jail...but it'll cost ya.

Yes, but how much does it cost to make an amendment like this? I'm just wondering if this would actually cost more than keeping him incarcerated (which I know isn't the point of the bill but would be interesting to know).

Current cost to prison a guy is in excess of $43,000. I am guessing an amendment to a bill is probably a bit south of that. It really depends on the amount of time spent debating it in congress.

Interesting that you actually see this as a cost to incarcerate vs. pardoning him without actually pardoning him. I see the reason to pass this bill is to set the man free without actually over-turning a courts decision that he was guilty of said charges. In other words, they believe he did his job and did something good, but he did it the wrong way. Sure the guy can't get a job in law enforcement anymore, but he's not going to die for ridding the world of one more scumbag.

Leave it to me to ask the dumbass question, but: was the person they shot a convicted drug smuggler, or a suspected drug smuggler?

I know it makes next to no difference in the almighty Drug War, or the hot-button War on Illegal Immigration (WII, omg), but I'm just curious.

All of which can be turned off. Other than taking up a room in a most likely overcroweded prison, no utilities or consumables actually need to be used to dump a man in a box. I would hope our government would not do something like that over a divison of powers argument but, the list of things I hope our government wouldn't do, keeps getting shorter.

What I am getting at is that congress can indeed attempt executive defined actions, when and if they have the will, however no matter what, they are dependant on the executive to interpret and carry out said actions. Cutting off money to fund a prisoner does nothing to actually grant his release unless the exectutive interprets it in the way congress wishes, and acts on it.

The article just said "drug smuggler" but I assumed that, whatever his past career may have been, if the law was chasing him it was for crimes for which he had not yet been tried and found guilty. I'm not sure though.Can they? I'm not intimately familiar with the utilities hookup for a prison cell but I wouldn't assume that they can independently control the heat, water, lights, etc for every cell without being sure.

They could take the time to cut off the ducts, pipes, wires, etc to hi--- well, no. That would require funding to be spent on him. See my point? It would also almost certainly be a violation of his 8th Amendment rights.

Edited, Aug 1st 2007 4:25pm by Jophiel

*Pat on the head*

That's nice.

Upon further reading, I came across this quote from Ted PoeSo I suppose the smuggler survived and was, indeed, smuggling. Just to clear that bit up.

Meh, this country would be a whole lot better off if we had a few more Ignacio Ramoses manning the border. It'd make those ******** think twice before diving into the Rio Grande. I say RACK the guy and give him a promotion and a whole department of itchy fingered gunslingers.

Totem

Honestly, I don't care if the guy shot was saving kittens from a fire or giving anthrax to Hitler. I'm more curious about this complete silence regarding the fact that the House of Representatives have taken it upon themselves to effectively commute a prison sentence.

They probably figured, since the judicial branch is legislating, and the executive branch is judging AND legislating, they may as well ooze over and do some judgin' and some commutin' to fill the empty hours.

Perhaps the more conservative members will vote to secede and join the Cheney branch.