Latest news with #Grossman
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - The Constitution empowers the president to pardon civil offenses
President Trump has exercised the pardon power in ways that have defied custom and surprised many. He pardoned all of the Jan. 6 rioters. He has sometimes bypassed the traditional Department of Justice process for considering pardon requests. The Wall Street Journal recently characterized pardons in Trump's second term as 'the Wild West.' As in other areas, Trump has approached pardons in a way that rejects norms and maximizes executive prerogative. However, Trump has not yet deployed the pardon power in another way that would challenge convention and expand presidential authority: He has not tried to pardon any civil offenses. But he could do it. Many punishments meted out by the federal government take the form of civil penalties rather than criminal sentences. Agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau routinely impose penalties of millions of dollars for alleged civil — not criminal — violations, as well as imposing restrictions on the future conduct of the entities they target. If he wished to do so, Trump could remedy the regulatory overreach of unduly aggressive civil enforcement actions by pardoning the underlying civil offenses. The pardon power is succinctly set forth at Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution: 'The president … shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.' Conventional wisdom says the pardon power is limited to criminal offenses, but you will notice there is no such statement in the constitutional language. This erroneous conclusion stems largely from the Supreme Court's 1925 decision Ex parte Grossman, in which the court held that the president could pardon criminal contempt of court, but suggested a pardon could not apply to civil contempt. The distinction was based on the court's characterization of criminal contempt as 'punitive' whereas civil contempt is 'remedial.' However, this distinction does not lead inexorably to the conclusion that the pardon power applies only in the criminal context. It could just as easily lead to the conclusion that any 'punitive' measure imposed by the federal government can be pardoned. Indeed, the Supreme Court's reasoning in Grossman was at odds with earlier decisions in which the court sweepingly asserted that the president can pardon 'fines, penalties, and forfeitures of every description arising under the laws of Congress' (The Laura, 1885) and that the pardon power 'extends to every offense known to the law' (Ex parte Garland, 1866). There is no question that the Constitution empowers the president to pardon terrorists and organized crime bosses. It would be deeply incongruous if he could pardon heinous criminal acts but not, for example, civil violations of securities laws. The notion that the president lacks authority to pardon civil offenses is inconsistent with the best reading of the Constitution. The term 'offences' used in the Pardon Clause is a broad category that includes but is not limited to crimes. In addition to the Pardon Clause, the term 'offences' appears in the 'Offences Clause' at Article I, Section 8. This clause gives Congress the power 'To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations.' This clause is not limited to criminal acts — the courts and Congress have cited it as authority for civil laws, such as the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and the Torture Victim Protection Act. Further, the Pardon Clause states that impeachment cannot be pardoned, though impeachment is not a criminal offense. If the Framers understood that the pardon power applies only to criminal offenses, there would have been no need so explicitly to exclude impeachment from its reach. In the early days of the republic, pardons were used to excuse violations that today would be considered civil in nature. Federal civil offenses did not even exist in the late 18th century. Consequently, early presidents issued pardons for then-criminal offenses that would undoubtedly be treated as civil regulatory violations today. For example, Washington and Adams pardoned minor customs violations. Jefferson issued pardons for 'keeping a billiard table without license' and 'keeping a disorderly house.' Trump has taken unprecedented steps both to reduce regulatory overreach and to reassert executive authority as intended by the Constitution — for example, by removing members of so-called 'independent' agencies. Applying the pardon power to civil offenses where warranted is another legitimate tool available to him. Thomas Beck is the author of 'Constitutional Separation of Powers: Cases and Commentary' and is a former federal agency head. He served as an adviser to the Trump-Vance transition. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
9 hours ago
- Politics
- The Hill
The Constitution empowers the president to pardon civil offenses
President Trump has exercised the pardon power in ways that have defied custom and surprised many. He pardoned all of the Jan. 6 rioters. He has sometimes bypassed the traditional Department of Justice process for considering pardon requests. The Wall Street Journal recently characterized pardons in Trump's second term as 'the Wild West.' As in other areas, Trump has approached pardons in a way that rejects norms and maximizes executive prerogative. However, Trump has not yet deployed the pardon power in another way that would challenge convention and expand presidential authority: He has not tried to pardon any civil offenses. But he could do it. Many punishments meted out by the federal government take the form of civil penalties rather than criminal sentences. Agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau routinely impose penalties of millions of dollars for alleged civil — not criminal — violations, as well as imposing restrictions on the future conduct of the entities they target. If he wished to do so, Trump could remedy the regulatory overreach of unduly aggressive civil enforcement actions by pardoning the underlying civil offenses. The pardon power is succinctly set forth at Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution: 'The president … shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.' Conventional wisdom says the pardon power is limited to criminal offenses, but you will notice there is no such statement in the constitutional language. This erroneous conclusion stems largely from the Supreme Court's 1925 decision Ex parte Grossman, in which the court held that the president could pardon criminal contempt of court, but suggested a pardon could not apply to civil contempt. The distinction was based on the court's characterization of criminal contempt as 'punitive' whereas civil contempt is 'remedial.' However, this distinction does not lead inexorably to the conclusion that the pardon power applies only in the criminal context. It could just as easily lead to the conclusion that any 'punitive' measure imposed by the federal government can be pardoned. Indeed, the Supreme Court's reasoning in Grossman was at odds with earlier decisions in which the court sweepingly asserted that the president can pardon 'fines, penalties, and forfeitures of every description arising under the laws of Congress' (The Laura, 1885) and that the pardon power 'extends to every offense known to the law' (Ex parte Garland, 1866). There is no question that the Constitution empowers the president to pardon terrorists and organized crime bosses. It would be deeply incongruous if he could pardon heinous criminal acts but not, for example, civil violations of securities laws. The notion that the president lacks authority to pardon civil offenses is inconsistent with the best reading of the Constitution. The term 'offences' used in the Pardon Clause is a broad category that includes but is not limited to crimes. In addition to the Pardon Clause, the term 'offences' appears in the 'Offences Clause' at Article I, Section 8. This clause gives Congress the power 'To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations.' This clause is not limited to criminal acts — the courts and Congress have cited it as authority for civil laws, such as the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and the Torture Victim Protection Act. Further, the Pardon Clause states that impeachment cannot be pardoned, though impeachment is not a criminal offense. If the Framers understood that the pardon power applies only to criminal offenses, there would have been no need so explicitly to exclude impeachment from its reach. In the early days of the republic, pardons were used to excuse violations that today would be considered civil in nature. Federal civil offenses did not even exist in the late 18th century. Consequently, early presidents issued pardons for then-criminal offenses that would undoubtedly be treated as civil regulatory violations today. For example, Washington and Adams pardoned minor customs violations. Jefferson issued pardons for 'keeping a billiard table without license' and 'keeping a disorderly house.' Trump has taken unprecedented steps both to reduce regulatory overreach and to reassert executive authority as intended by the Constitution — for example, by removing members of so-called 'independent' agencies. Applying the pardon power to civil offenses where warranted is another legitimate tool available to him. Thomas Beck is the author of 'Constitutional Separation of Powers: Cases and Commentary' and is a former federal agency head. He served as an adviser to the Trump-Vance transition.
Jordan News
16 hours ago
- Health
- Jordan News
Discover the Ideal Weight for More Attractive Facial Features - Jordan News
Discover the Ideal Weight for More Attractive Facial Features American plastic surgeon Dr. Leonard Grossman suggests that human faces are generally perceived as more attractive when the Body Mass Index (BMI) falls within the normal range of 18.5 to 24.9. اضافة اعلان According to Dr. Grossman, genetics play a key role in determining facial shape and structure, both of which can naturally change with age. In younger individuals — even those with normal weight or slightly overweight — "baby fat" often accumulates in the cheeks. As people grow older, this fat tends to diminish, leading to more defined facial features. However, Dr. Grossman cautions against cheek fat removal procedures, despite their growing popularity. 'What may seem excessive now often disappears on its own with age,' he says. He stresses that facial attractiveness isn't linearly linked to fat volume: both an excess and a deficiency of facial fat can lead to health concerns and disrupt facial harmony. An international study found that the most attractive faces tend to have an ideal layer of facial fat, which aligns with a BMI between 18.5 and 24.9. This was supported by research from Australia, South Africa, and Malaysia, showing that a healthy amount of facial fat is tied to this BMI range. The study also notes that perceptions of beauty are influenced by familiarity: people tend to find faces more attractive when they possess common or frequently seen features — a phenomenon known as the "mere exposure effect." For reference, BMI is a simple anthropometric formula used to assess the relationship between body weight and height. According to the World Health Organization, a BMI between 18.5 and 24.9 is considered within the normal and healthy range. Source:
Middle East Eye
28-05-2025
- Politics
- Middle East Eye
Board of Deputies member quits in protest over Gaza ‘genocidal assault'
A member of the Board of Deputies of British Jews has resigned over what he described as the failure of its leaders to explicitly criticise 'the Israeli government's ongoing genocidal assault on Gaza'. Speaking at a board meeting on Sunday, Daniel Grossman said he had lost confidence in the leadership of the board, a representative body made up of elected members from synagogues and Jewish organisations that describes itself as 'the voice of the British Jewish Community'. He said recent meetings between board leaders and Israeli ministers and officials, including foreign minister Gideon Saar, were 'both untenable and morally bankrupt'. Grossman, a deputy for the Union of Jewish Students who is currently studying at the University of Bristol, said board leaders had 'both failed to act ethically and also to represent the increasing diversity of opinion' over Gaza within Jewish communities. He said that Israeli opposition figures including Yair Golan, the main opposition leader, and Ehud Olmert, the former prime minister, were publicly recognising that atrocities are being committed. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters 'What good are private words in plenaries when you continue to meet with Israeli government officials and oppose any real action to stop their crimes?' he said. 'How many more Palestinians have to be killed and Israeli hostages sacrificed before the board speaks out against Israel's genocidal assault on Gaza?' As part of his work for the board, Grossman was a member of its international division and co-chaired a two-state solution working group. Critical letter Grossman was among 36 board members who last month signed a letter published in the Financial Times in which they strongly condemned Israel's renewed assault on the Palestinian enclave and its withholding of food and aid which has left hundreds of thousands on the brink of starvation. 'The inclination to avert our eyes is strong, as what is happening is unbearable, but our Jewish values compel us to stand up and to speak out,' they wrote. Leaders of the board accused the 36 deputies of 'misrepresenting our community', launched disciplinary proceedings against them, and suspended an executive committee member who had signed the letter. More than 800 lawyers and judges call on UK to sanction Israel over Gaza war Read More » Writing on social media shortly after publication of the letter following a meeting with Saar in London, Board President Phil Rosenberg wrote: 'Jewish leadership is standing up for peace & security in Israel & the Middle East… Unity is strength. Division serves only our enemies.' But other prominent British Jewish figures have continued to speak up in support of the dissident deputies, and in condemnation of the Israeli government's actions. In another letter to the Financial Times, 30 rabbis from Reformist and Liberal synagogues said they too could 'no longer turn a blind eye or remain silent'. Last week, Laura Janner-Klausner, the former senior rabbi for Reform Judaism, told Middle East Eye: 'There are many mainstream Jews who are seeing this as a complete moral and humanitarian disaster.' And on Sunday, Jonathan Wittenberg, the senior rabbi for Masorti Judaism, wrote that Israel's conduct of its assault on Gaza and withholding of aid 'contradicts what we have painfully learned from our long history as victims of persecution and mass murder'. Grossman's resignation was welcomed on Tuesday by Naa'mod, a British Jewish organisation that opposes Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories and is critical of the board. 'We commend his decision to resign - it was principled, urgent, and necessary,' it said in a statement on social media. Sunday's Board of Deputies meeting followed a visit to Jerusalem last week by a delegation including Rosenberg and Michael Wegier, the board's chief executive, to attend a meeting of the World Jewish Congress, an international organisation representing Jewish communities around the world. While there, Rosenberg and Wegier also met with Lapid and Ayman Odeh, the leader of the Palestinian-Israeli Hadash party, as well as foreign ministry officials. Addressing Sunday's meeting, Rosenberg described the Board of Deputies as a 'proudly Zionist organisation'. Acknowledging criticism of the Israeli government's conduct of the war, Rosenberg said that 'food should not be used as a weapon of war' and said board leaders had 'been clear to Israeli leaders that we need to see aid flowing into Gaza'. He condemned settler violence against Palestinians in the West Bank and described far-right government ministers Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir as 'a stain on the Zionist project'. 'Let me be clear: We strongly oppose rhetoric and actions aimed at the permanent forced displacement of populations, including the civilian population of Gaza,' he said. But Rosenberg added that it had been a mistake for the British government to suspend free trade talks with Israel. The board has previously criticised the suspension of some arms export licences to Israel, and the withdrawal by the current Labour government of the objection against the prosecution of Israeli leaders at the International Criminal Court raised by the previous UK government. In a statement published on Tuesday by Naa'mod, Grossman said: 'It is imperative the board gains the courage to act as a truly representative and moral body for all of British Jewry.'
Axios
26-05-2025
- Business
- Axios
What stores, restaurants are open Memorial Day. See the list.
The unofficial start to summer has arrived, and it's marked with patriotic parades, cookouts, record travel and sales. The big picture: 50% of consumers plan to celebrate the Memorial Day holiday weekend, according to a Numerator survey of 5,900 adults. Many Americans have Monday off as 95% of U.S. businesses observe the federal holiday, according to OnTheClock, an employee time tracking company. Memorial Day sales and tariffs What we're watching: Memorial Day weekend sales are a chance to shop before prices rise because of tariffs, said Marc Grossman, head of Wells Fargo's banks factoring group. Grossman recommends consumers even start shopping for the winter holidays. "Not only could inventory be an issue as we get closer to holiday, but with the possible tariff increases, prices could also be impacted," Grossman said. Zoom in: Retailers have been publicly addressing the impact of tariffs differently. The CEOs of three of the nation's biggest retailers privately warned President Trump last month his trade policy could trigger massive product shortages and price spikes. Walmart, the world's largest retailer, said on May 15 it couldn't hold the line anymore and would have to raise some prices. Target said last week it would "offset the vast majority" of tariff impacts to consumers and raise prices as the "very last resort." Home Depot said it doesn't plan to increase prices "broadly," but some items might disappear from store shelves. Banks, stock market closed Memorial Day, no mail 📪 The New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq are closed on the holiday and will next be closed on Juneteenth, which is on June 19 this year. Stores open on Memorial Day 🛍️ The majority of national chains are keeping their doors open but hours can vary by location. Click on the store name for links to business websites. Stores closed Memorial Day 🚫 Grocery stores open Memorial Day 2025 🛒 Store hours can vary but here are the nation's largest grocery store chains are open Monday. Restaurants open on Memorial Day near me 🍽️ Dig in: Most national chains are open — though some may operate on holiday hours. Fast food open on Memorial Day 2025 🍔 Starbucks, Dunkin' open Memorial Day 2025 ☕ Many Starbucks and Dunkin' locations are open but be on the safe side and check your closest location before heading out. Memorial Day restaurants open Between the lines: Being open on a holiday is often a franchise decision. You can also find restaurants accepting reservations through OpenTable.
