Talk:Plenary power

"... or authority"
Does those words add anything to the lead (not covered by "power")? If not, they should be cut. Piratejosh85 (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

POV
"The idea of unlimited Federal powers is at odds with the reality that the 13 original states existed before the U.S. Constitution, that they each became vested with plenary sovereignty inherited directly from the British monarch and Parliament after the joint 1776 Declaration of Independence, and that they voluntarily delegated some of that plenary sovereignty to the Federal government they created by ratifying the U.S. Constitution, which is therefore a government of limited, enumerated powers. This latter view is validated by the Tenth Amendment and the legal doctrine of the equality of states, especially as it relates to the 37 non-original states." This is clearly POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.47.241.222 (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I read that paragraph and came to this talk page with the same concern. I'll go ahead and remove it. —Megiddo1013 09:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * But it's not just a point-of-view. Despite some overly vague statements on his part, the thrust of what he is saying is verifiable fact. He's working off of solid historical evidence, and it is indeed backed up by the Tenth Amendment and its historical context for being written into the Constitution as an amendment. There is lots of historical evidence and jurisprudence to back that up, regardless of current political debates one way or the other. Perhaps it's not relevant to the article, and you may judge it on those merits, but he does have verifiable historical fact to back him up: http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/amendments/10/essays/163/reserved-powers-of-the-states 2601:802:8002:868C:5150:8A6F:C013:213C (talk) 02:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Another POV issue concerns the almost exclusive reliance on Heritage Foundation resources for the discussion of the doctrine. The foundation has a clear ideological bent, and it's likely that this bent will impact their understanding of the doctrine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.30.25.90 (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, the Heritage Foundation definitely has a bent but two elements of the earlier point are indisputable given international law then, and probably now- 1. the original seceding 13 colonies by declaring independence of the Crown assumed, severally, the full sovereignty for their assemblies/conventions/governments formerly exercised over them by the King-in-Parliament. Sovereignty doesn't get annihilated in law unless the polity in question is. They formed a confederation which appears to have had qualities well short of sovereignty, then in turn dissolved it and replaced it with a Union that did, by ratifying a Constitution that created one and described delegated powers and reserved all others to the states and people. That DOES leave open plenty of room for argument among the states and the people as an aggregate rather than of the several states. But it doesn't imply that, up to now, the undelegated plenary powers of the states have been eliminated. And 2. answering what would and probably should be a permanent ambiguity, the doctrine of equality of the states means all the states inherit those plenary powers, despite 37 of them having been created on soil already belonging to the United States by people already citizens of the US. As you see, I'm not untorn. An eternal irony of American federalism. Random noter (talk) 02:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

On the Immigration law section, this bit raises a one word choice concern: "The Center for Immigration Studies, an organization with a slant toward isolationism, suggests there is a movement to "erode" political-branch control over immigration in favor of a judge-administered system and that the results have created national security concerns." That advocacy group similarly has a definite POV, and so do I. For the US or my own country, I'm also not sure how this sort of thing can be subject to judicial claims at all. Full Disclosure from me.

But my only actual concern with it is more specific- "isolationism" is not the same thing as "immigration restriction". The CIS seems to be for the latter. That is not the same as the larger, foreign policy implications of the term "isolationism". Neither is necessarily a consequence of the other, and the latter is definitely not an inevitable consequence of the former. The article would better tag CIS with the former label. Left as is, but hope to entertain discussion. Random noter (talk) 02:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

May 23, 2019:

This Wiki article deserves thoughtful and deliberative sourcing improvements regarding plenary powers and how those powers impact state, federal and Constitutional law — especially in regard to "unchecked oversight" and immigration. Broadening the sourcing could help eliminate perceived (and/or actual) bias, as both the Heritage Foundation and the Center for Immigration Studies are known to be partisan lobbying organizations.

Also, updating this Wiki page with more contemporary instances of plenary power could improve NPOV, as well.

Less-partisan sources for consideration: National Constitution Center, Yale Law Journal, Berkeley La Raza Law Journal, Columbia Law Review, Indiana Law Journal, SCOTUSblog.com, studies and scholarly reports by non-partisan immigration law professionals, etc.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2017/07/symposium-end-plenary-power/

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/testing-federal-power-over-immigration/505232/

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/who-can-be-excluded-as-an-immigrant-to-the-united-states

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/legal-issues-involved-in-the-trump-immigration-travel-order

https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1863&context=faculty_scholarship

https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1277&context=blrlj

etc.

ADDITIONALLY, the use of CIS — especially as a primary source or without the inclusion of less-biased sources supporting the claims — might be questionable as far as NPOV and bias is concerned. Media bias organizations categorize it as "far-right," saying the Center for Immigration Studies is "a questionable source based on publishing misleading information (propaganda) regarding immigration, as well as ties either directly or indirectly to the John Tanton Network, who is a known White Nationalist."'''

Sources:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/center-for-immigration-studies-cis/

https://www.citylab.com/life/2015/09/are-half-of-americas-immigrants-really-on-welfare/403657/

https://www.politifact.com/florida/article/2017/mar/22/center-immigration-studies-hate-group-southern-pov/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/immigration-border-disease-risk/

https://www.snopes.com/news/2018/03/22/will-border-wall-pay-immigrants-cost-government-money/

https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/03/29/us-immigration-policy/

I'm open to any and all feedback. Thank you!

ChillyDurden (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources for Pardon power?
The Presidential pardons section is misleading, and in fact, incorrect:

By definition, the Presidential power to pardon (& the derivitive power of commutation) is not plenary; per, "except in cases of impeachment." Judge Walter Nixon's 1992 impeachment, and Baker v Carr, both speak to Article III review of the two political branches in this misperceived plenary power; where black letter conctitutional provisions have been violated. Further contrary to the article, this would be discovered via bringing a case, with standing, after a federal arrest of an unconstitutionally pardoned defendant, and a subsequent challenge.

E.g., the House has the Sole power of impeachment. And impeachment is "forever." William Jefferson Clinton was, is, and will always be an impeached president. Although, he was not convicted in the Senate trial - which had Sole power to try impeachments. And hence, he was never removed from office.

Donald John Trump was impeached, on two articles the first time, on December 18, 2019.

In ARTICLE I: ABUSE OF POWER, the House states at(1) (b): a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine — rather than Russia — interfered in the 2016 United States Presidential election. https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres755/BILLS-116hres755enr.pdf

On october 17, 2016 Roger Jason Stone, Jr. tweeted, "The only interference in the US election is from Hillary's friends in Ukraine." http://web.archive.org/web/20161017002913if_/https://twitter.com/rogerjstonejr/status/773162795240189952

Per this Wikipedia article's section, heading, Presidential Pardons: Article II, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution. The President is granted the power to "grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences (sic) against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment".

Black letter Constitutional provisions are justiciable; per the Supreme Court of the United States' 1962 Baker v Carr case: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/369/186/ And as well, Judge Walter Nixon's impeachment appeal to the Supreme Court, argued before the court on October 14, 1992, in NIXON v. UNITED STATES et al.

Per Chief Justice Rehnquist's opinion in Nixon, decided January 13, 1993: 506 U. S. 224 (1993), the Chief Justice writes in the syllabus:

(d) A holding of nonjusticiability is consistent with this Court's opinion in Powell v. McCormack, 395 U. S. 486. Unlike the situation in thatcase, there is no separate constitutional provision which could be de-feated by allowing the Senate final authority to determine the meaning of the word "try" in Art. I, § 3, cl. 6. While courts possess power to review legislative action that transgresses identifiable textual limits, the word "try" does not provide such a limit on the authority committed to the Senate. Pp. 236-238. https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep506/usrep506224/usrep506224.pdf

President Donald John Trump's 2019 impeachment's Article I charge of 'Abuse of Power' is related, in part, to his 2016 presidential campaign's lies about his 2016 opponent, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Lies, as cited in the 2019 Abuse article, such as: election interference involving Ukraine and of Russia, and part of a broader campaign of lies in conspiracy with Roger Jason Stone, Jr. against the 2016 Clinton presidential campaign. Additionally, and related to President Trump's 2019 impeachment was his conspiracy with Stone involving traunches of Clinton campaign emails supplied by Wikileaks - per Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III, a conduit for the Russian government. Emails akin to those purported to be on offer previously from Russian government lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, in her June 9, 2016 Trump Tower meeting with high level Trump campaign officials; including son, Donald John Trump, Jr. https://www.npr.org/2016/10/12/497698455/whats-in-the-latest-wikileaks-dump-of-clinton-campaign-emails https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/first-batch-hillary-clinton-emails-benghazi-testimony-released-n454896 https://www.npr.org/2016/10/08/497170981/wikileaks-releases-alleged-clinton-wall-street-speeches-in-batch-of-campaign-ema

October 7, 2016, thirty minutes after Trump's 'Access Holllywood' tape is made public, gloating bout sexual assaultinf women, Roger Jason Stone is reported to have a first traunch of Hillary's emails released by Wikileaks; which were, thirty miutes after. https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/07/politics/one-year-access-hollywood-russia-podesta-email/index.html

Stone's commutation (below) pertained to his finding of guilt on six counts of making fruadulent statements to the U.S. House Permanent Select Committe on Intelligence and the U.S. Senate Select Committe on Intelligence, and one count of witness tampering - filed by Special Counsel Mueller on January 24, 2019 (below). And all in direct relation to Stone's conspiracy with Donald John Trump's 2016 preidential campaign of lies and conspiracy viz email dumps to hobble the Clinton campaign: All related to Ukraine, Russia, and Wikileaks and against the Clinton campaign. Directly related to the articles for which President Trump was impeached on December 18, 2019. https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.203583/gov.uscourts.dcd.203583.1.0_1.pdf https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/HPSCI_Transcripts/2019-05-21-RogerS-MTR.pdf https://fas.org/irp/congress/2020_rpt/ssci_russia_v5.pdf https://www.justice.gov/pardon/page/file/1293796/download (Commutation.)

Given Roger Jason Stone, Jr.'s involvement, public record, par for that which President Trump had been impeached, Stone's July 10, 2020 commutation is a black letter unconstitutional violation of the presidential pardon power. And hence, justiciable. At no point was Stone's commutation constitutional.

Former Attorney General William Pelham Barr was not to be expected to bring charges. This matter may be resolved by a plaintiff with standing filing a case, or arresting Roger Jason Stone, Jr., now. And seeing a likely subsequent case brought by the defendant, presenting the question in federal court.

A President Biden administration's Department of Justice, or FBI, could make an arrest. Outside of this, the Speaker of the House would have standing to contest the illegal commutation, and force it into federal court. The Supreme Court of the United States would take the black letter case, per, "except in cases of impeachment." A non-plenary power, and justiciable in execptional cases, as a likely summary judgement, jailing Roger Jason Stone, Jr.

Please clarify this Plenary Power Wikipedia article, viz its misunderstanding within the section entitled: Presidential pardons.

2601:646:4380:3540:1531:C52B:3345:9294 (talk) 12:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The whole pardon section appears to be unsourced. It looks relatively accurate to me, fwiw, but... Can we, you know, find sources? Daniel J. Hakimi (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Hometown Corruption
It's really sad to see your Hometown spiral downward as as a young boy to today 38 yrs later. History is being repeated and every Historical Marker In my town McAllen, TX a border town 10 min away from the Mexican Border. Every fact coincidentally matches up from going the distance to figuring out why the city is the City of Wonder? 2600:1700:A300:8BD0:CC0D:90A7:CE4D:BEF (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Definition of Plenary
I disagree that "absolute" is a good starting place for the definition. As much as the dictionary does define plenary as absolute (and I am sure there is a case that identifies it with such a meaning in American law), I think it is better understood by explicating the other synonym the dictionary uses: "unqualified" in the sense of limitless. Since "unqualified" can also mean lacking necessary skill, I think the best place to start the definition is with "unlimited." Then the controls on the power are explained as resolving conflicting jurisdictions. For example, dormant commerce clause jurisprudence is not so much a limitation on power, but rather a recognition that an ostensible exercise of jurisdiction within your own domain can instead be an interference with the plenary powers of another. Plenary is not absolute because where the jurisdictional line falls depends on the particulars. To take another example, the extent states can regulate medicine has to do with their plenary power to protect individuals from harm directly from another (malpractice or unlicensed practice) and to protect society (block practices that fray the social fabric). It falls away where the effect is more interfering with individuals and their plenary right to autonomy or the right of people to act as a self-determining group. Again, it is a jurisdictional conflict that belies absolute power but is consistent with unlimited power within its sphere. Absolute within its sphere strikes me as a paradox. Power is absolute, or not. Unlimited within its sphere, especially in light of how the law actually plays out, seems to me to be on point. Lamoatlarge (talk) 19:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC)