Joseph McKenna

Name: Burdick v. United States — Opinion of the Court
Author: Joseph McKenna

Burdick v. United States — Opinion of the Court

Summary

“Burdick v. United States — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by Joseph McKenna. It explores elements such as pardon, the United States and acceptance.

Quotes from Burdick v. United States — Opinion of the Court (Joseph McKenna)

Joseph McKenna, Burdick v. United States — Opinion of the Court

“ If it be objected that the sensitiveness of Burdick was extreme because his refusal to answer was itself an implication of crime, we answer, not necessarily in fact, not at all in theory of law. It supposed only a possibility of a charge of crime, and interposed protection against the charge, and, reaching beyond it, against furnishing what might be urged or used as evidence to support it.
This brings us to the differences between legislative immunity and a pardon. They are substantial. The latter carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Joseph McKenna, Burdick v. United States — Opinion of the Court

“ It demonstrates by both the necessity of the acceptance of a pardon to its legal efficacy, and the court did not hesitate in decision, as we have seen, whatever the alternative of acceptance, whether it be death or lesser penalty. The contrast shows the right of the individual against the exercise of executive power not solicited by him nor accepted by him.
The principles declared in United States v. Wilson have endured for years; no case has reversed or modified them. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Joseph McKenna, Burdick v. United States — Opinion of the Court

“ It is to be borne in mind that the power of the President under the Constitution to grant pardons and the right of a witness must be kept in accommodation. Both have sanction in the Constitution, and it should, therefore, be the anxiety of the law to preserve both,-to leave to each its proper place. In this as in other conflicts between personal rights and the powers of government, technical-even nice distinctions are proper to be regarded. Granting, then, that the pardon was legally issued and was sufficient for immunity, it was Burdick's right to refuse it, as we have seen ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Joseph McKenna, Burdick v. United States — Opinion of the Court

“ In support of the contentions there is an intimation of analogy between pardon and amnesty, cases are cited, and certain statutes of the United States are adduced whereby immunity was imposed in certain instances, and under its unsolicited protection testimony has been exacted against the claim of privilege asserted by witnesses. There is plausibility in the contentions; it disappears upon reflection. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Joseph McKenna, Burdick v. United States — Opinion of the Court

“ The conclusion is hence deduced that the pardon removed from Burdick all danger of accusation or conviction of crime, and that, therefore, the answers to the questions put to him could not tend to or accomplish his incrimination.
Plaintiff in error counters the contention and conclusion with directly opposing ones, and makes other contentions which attack the sufficiency of the pardon as immunity and the power of the President to grant a pardon for an offense not precedently established nor confessed nor defined.
The discussion of counsel is as broad as their contentions. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Joseph McKenna, Burdick v. United States — Opinion of the Court

“ A final order of commitment was then made and entered, and he was committed to the custody of the United States marshal until he should purge himself of contempt, or until the further order of the court. This writ of error was then allowed.
The question in the case is the effect of the unaccepted pardon. The Solicitor General, in his discussion of the question, following the division of the district court, contends (1) that the President has power to pardon an offense before admission or conviction of it, and (2) the acceptance of the pardon is not necessary to its complete exculpating effect. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Joseph McKenna, Burdick v. United States — Opinion of the Court

“ John Doe and Richard Roe,' as to the sources of the information which he had in the New York Tribune office, or in his possession, or under his control at the time he sent Henry D. Kingsbury, a reporter on the said New York Tribune, to write an article which appeared in the said New York Tribune in its issue of December 31st, 1913, headed, 'Glove Makers' Gems May Be Customs Size,' on the ground that it would tend to incriminate him to answer the questions ”

Joseph McKenna

Summary

Quotes from Burdick v. United States — Opinion of the Court (Joseph McKenna)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature