Executive Branch question please?

Regarding specifically the Scooter Libby sentencing, but please no political hatred by either conservative or liberal, thank you.

The question is: Does the Office of the President have the authority to COMMUTE a sentence? In terms of having the jurisdiction to do so?

I understand the President may PARDON a convicted person, as Mr Clinton did an excessive number of times (most in Presidential history by far). While perfectly legal, I feel that it was abused.

The current President COMMUTED the sentence, which is less than a full pardon. While I do support Mr Libby, and I believe that he was wrongly convicted in that a crime never took place, I do not think there is precedent for the President to COMMUTE a sentence vs a full pardon. My justification is that commutation is a judicial tool, not an executive tool.

May I please have INTELLIGENT and not politically charged answers please. Thanks.

I do thank all of those who respected the question enough to answer in procedural form. there are many great answers here. And message to the responder regarding "ask the question, take all answers". I am not required to accept any answers at all, and those that receive the extra bonus points will be the ones who are intelligent. I was satisfied with your answer untill you left an open ended opinion regarding traitors. i would be happy to hear your justifications for deeming whomever you referred to as being a traitor. But you insult my intelligence by stating traitor without backing your claim up with fact. even mere opinion would not suffice.
Thank you to all who WERE intelligent with their replies.

He acted fully within his legal power to commute the sentence. He was only repaying the favor Libby did for him and Cheney by taking the bullet for them. Libby was acting under orders when he outed Plame AND when he committed perjury. He will pardon him in a 1 1/2 years.

The president's pardoning power is widely misunderstood. "Clemency," the broadest term, includes the various kinds of relief available under the pardoning power. A president can commute an offender's sentence, substituting a lesser for a more severe sentence. Or he can grant a reprieve, which postpones execution of a sentence for a specified period of time. Or he can grant a full and unconditional pardon, relieving the offender of almost all the legal consequences of the offense.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/moore1.htm

And I dont support Libbby who is protecting a traitor!

I beleive if you read the presidents Grant of Executive Clemency he states he is given this power in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution which states:

...and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

If you look up the definition of "repreive" it states repreive as: a respite from impending punishment, as from execution of a sentence of death.

Also if you look up the definition of clemency it states: the quality of being clement; disposition to show forbearance, compassion, or forgiveness in judging or punishing; leniency; mercy.

So the president has the power to grant reprieves or as they stated in the news release "clemency." They are pretty much the same word. I am not laywer nor do I claim to be a professional at interpreting the constitution, but this is my take on the matter, and if you take the constitution at face value, then yes, the president did have the authority to grant clemency to Scooter Libby. He did not pardon him, as the 2 year probation and $250,000 fine still stands, he only commuted the prison sentence part of the punishment.

the real question is, does a criminal have the authority to pardon or commute the sentence of another criminal?

yes

The text of Article 2 Section 2 of the US constitution reads:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment

The President has the power to completely overturn a criminal conviction. This is a full pardon. The conviction is wiped away as if it never happened. The President can commute a criminal sentence, turning a life sentence into a 10 year sentence or a death penalty into a life sentence. The President can make a pardon conditional, vacating a conviction but leaving paid fines in place, or even making the payment of a fine a prerequisite before a pardon takes effect

The Presdent does indeed have the authority.

The US Constitution, specifically Article Two states the division of power of each branch of government.

In my opinion I believe he did it the way he did to placate the left ,and to try and be a bit even handed with the situation . I'm sorry but you have to expect the rhetoric from the left as displayed by "cantu" but I expect JBC , that you knew it would show up , en so ?

Yes, The President has the power of his office to commute the sentence, because it was excessive.
I think the reason that President Bush did this, is if he gave Mr. Libby a pardon he would not be able to appeal to a higher court, and would have no re-coarse to clear his name.
Now he will have to pay his fines, but if he goes back to court and wins, it will clear his name.

Obviously yes.

Let me see.
Libby was convicted for perjury in an investigation that should have been complete the year before.
His sentence far exceeded the typical given out for perjury.
He has to pay a quarter million dollar fine, is a convicted felon on probation, his career, family and his name is ruined.
All for saying "I don't know" in a political witch hunt.
HE WAS NOT THE LEAK.

The president commuted his sentence. While Bush has done a lot of foolish things, this is not one of them.
This is a great thing, plain and simple.

The president is well within his executive powers to commute anybody's sentence. There's no question about it.

The real question is, for what reasons?

If the decision appears politically motivated to protect a convicted person, that smacks of misjudgement and creates a bad legal precedent.