INTEGRITY IN WRITTEN AND VIDEO NEWS, featuring newsOS integration and a growing interactive community of interested and increasingly well-informed readers and viewers who help make us who we are… a truly objective news media resource with full disclosure of bias, fact-checking, voting, polling, ratings, and comments. Learn about our editorial policies and practices (below). Join us today by subscribing to either our FREE MEMBERSHIP plan, or our PLATINUM PAID SUBSCRIPTION plan; each plan offers an unparalleled suite of benefits to our subscribers. U.S. DAILY RUNDOWN:Your News, Your Voice.
Tag: Biden administration
Ed Martin’s Appointment as Pardon Attorney: Implications for Legal Precedents and Future Presidential Pardons
On April 2025, President Joe Biden appointed Ed Martin as the new Pardon Attorney, a pivotal role that directly influences the scope and execution of presidential pardons within the United States. Martin's appointment brings immediate attention to the controversial political and legal landscape surrounding the power of the pardon, particularly concerning the contrast between pardons granted under the Trump administration and those of the Biden era. At the heart of the issue is the application of executive clemency and the procedural autonomy of the Pardon Attorney's office, which is often at the center of political scrutiny due to its wide-reaching implications on justice reform, political retribution, and historical accountability.
Balancing the Books and Powers: Legal and Political Dynamics of Biden’s Stopgap Funding Bill
On May 28, 2025, President Joe Biden signed into law a short-term continuing resolution—H.R. 1968, the American Relief Act of 2025—just hours before the expiration of existing appropriations, thereby averting a partial government shutdown scheduled for that midnight deadline. This stopgap funding bill extends federal funding at current levels through September 30, 2025, while negotiations over the full Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 appropriations proceed. The episode spotlights enduring tensions between the executive and legislative branches over the power of the purse and the constitutional requirement that “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law” (U.S. Const. Art. I, § 9, cl. 7).