What checks exist against overuse of presidential pardons in the USA?Could a US President abuse their pardon powers to unilaterally make laws?Why is the US president allowed to grant a pardonCould the SCOTUS void a Presidential Pardon?Could the SCOTUS void a Presidential Pardon?What defines a presidential term in the USA?Can presidential pardons be made and then classified as secret to avoid making the pardon public?Can the USA president use military force against his/her own citizens without approval?Does a Presidential Pardon apply to other crimes which are uncovered during the investigation of the pardoned crime?Where can I find the text of Joe Arpaio's Presidential Pardon?What checks & balances exist on covert operations?The politics of the US presidential pardon in 2018Why doesn't the Presidential Pardon power extend to State Crimes?

How did medieval manors handle population growth? Were there room for more fields to be ploughed?

Why might one *not* want to use a capo?

How to deal with anxiety caused by dangerous riding conditions stemming from poor lane design and inconsiderate fellow road users?

Is there a word or phrase that means "use other people's wifi or Internet service without consent"?

What is Soda Fountain Etiquette?

Should I ask for a raise one month before the end of an internship?

Is allowing Barbarian features to work with Dex-based attacks imbalancing?

Normalized Malbolge to Malbolge translator

What ways are there to "PEEK" memory sections in (different) BASIC(s)

Why is 3/4 a simple meter while 6/8 is a compound meter?

Why doesn't Starship have four landing legs?

Count the number of triangles

Why can't I identify major and minor chords?

Why does a sticker slowly peel off, but if it is pulled quickly it tears?

Find feasible point in polynomial time in linear programming

Heat output from a 200W electric radiator?

Is this password scheme legit?

Adding and Multiplying Elements of a list together

Why does glibc's strlen need to be so complicated to run quickly?

Cutting numbers into a specific decimals

Drawing probabilities on a simplex in TikZ

Group riding etiquette

To what extent should we fear giving offense?

Is there an in-universe explanation given to the senior Imperial Navy Officers as to why Darth Vader serves Emperor Palpatine?



What checks exist against overuse of presidential pardons in the USA?


Could a US President abuse their pardon powers to unilaterally make laws?Why is the US president allowed to grant a pardonCould the SCOTUS void a Presidential Pardon?Could the SCOTUS void a Presidential Pardon?What defines a presidential term in the USA?Can presidential pardons be made and then classified as secret to avoid making the pardon public?Can the USA president use military force against his/her own citizens without approval?Does a Presidential Pardon apply to other crimes which are uncovered during the investigation of the pardoned crime?Where can I find the text of Joe Arpaio's Presidential Pardon?What checks & balances exist on covert operations?The politics of the US presidential pardon in 2018Why doesn't the Presidential Pardon power extend to State Crimes?






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








8















In some countries, the head of state can pardon anyone for alleged crimes. For example, in Nazi Germany, Adolf Hitler pardoned murderers of communists and Soviet prisoners of war, in those cases in which those crimes were actually prosecuted and resulting in a conviction.



In the U.S.A., the President can also pardon anyone for (alleged) federal crimes. What checks and balances exist to prevent a U.S. President from pardoning anyone convicted for a federal crime when he or she thinks that shouldn't be a crime in the first place (apart from losing re-election if such pardons are impopular)? Reportedly, President Trump has said has said that officials who take private land in order to build a border wall will be pardoned (a White House official has reportedly said this was a joke).










share|improve this question





















  • 2





    A related question discusses (without coming to a clear conclusion) whether the Supreme Court can void a pardon given as part of a scheme to commit a crime: Could the SCOTUS void a Presidential Pardon?

    – divibisan
    10 hours ago






  • 2





    Another related question: Could a US President abuse their pardon powers to unilaterally make laws?

    – divibisan
    9 hours ago






  • 1





    The pardon for any criminal act committed in taking the land doesn't stop the landowner from enforcing his or her ownership rights in court. That's not a criminal matter, and pardon power has no effect on the outcome. Similarly you can sue for civil damages related to infringement of property rights and perhaps other civil rights.

    – phoog
    5 hours ago






  • 1





    @phoog Tell that the President ;-)

    – gerrit
    4 hours ago

















8















In some countries, the head of state can pardon anyone for alleged crimes. For example, in Nazi Germany, Adolf Hitler pardoned murderers of communists and Soviet prisoners of war, in those cases in which those crimes were actually prosecuted and resulting in a conviction.



In the U.S.A., the President can also pardon anyone for (alleged) federal crimes. What checks and balances exist to prevent a U.S. President from pardoning anyone convicted for a federal crime when he or she thinks that shouldn't be a crime in the first place (apart from losing re-election if such pardons are impopular)? Reportedly, President Trump has said has said that officials who take private land in order to build a border wall will be pardoned (a White House official has reportedly said this was a joke).










share|improve this question





















  • 2





    A related question discusses (without coming to a clear conclusion) whether the Supreme Court can void a pardon given as part of a scheme to commit a crime: Could the SCOTUS void a Presidential Pardon?

    – divibisan
    10 hours ago






  • 2





    Another related question: Could a US President abuse their pardon powers to unilaterally make laws?

    – divibisan
    9 hours ago






  • 1





    The pardon for any criminal act committed in taking the land doesn't stop the landowner from enforcing his or her ownership rights in court. That's not a criminal matter, and pardon power has no effect on the outcome. Similarly you can sue for civil damages related to infringement of property rights and perhaps other civil rights.

    – phoog
    5 hours ago






  • 1





    @phoog Tell that the President ;-)

    – gerrit
    4 hours ago













8












8








8








In some countries, the head of state can pardon anyone for alleged crimes. For example, in Nazi Germany, Adolf Hitler pardoned murderers of communists and Soviet prisoners of war, in those cases in which those crimes were actually prosecuted and resulting in a conviction.



In the U.S.A., the President can also pardon anyone for (alleged) federal crimes. What checks and balances exist to prevent a U.S. President from pardoning anyone convicted for a federal crime when he or she thinks that shouldn't be a crime in the first place (apart from losing re-election if such pardons are impopular)? Reportedly, President Trump has said has said that officials who take private land in order to build a border wall will be pardoned (a White House official has reportedly said this was a joke).










share|improve this question
















In some countries, the head of state can pardon anyone for alleged crimes. For example, in Nazi Germany, Adolf Hitler pardoned murderers of communists and Soviet prisoners of war, in those cases in which those crimes were actually prosecuted and resulting in a conviction.



In the U.S.A., the President can also pardon anyone for (alleged) federal crimes. What checks and balances exist to prevent a U.S. President from pardoning anyone convicted for a federal crime when he or she thinks that shouldn't be a crime in the first place (apart from losing re-election if such pardons are impopular)? Reportedly, President Trump has said has said that officials who take private land in order to build a border wall will be pardoned (a White House official has reportedly said this was a joke).







united-states president pardon






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 10 hours ago







gerrit

















asked 10 hours ago









gerritgerrit

23.1k11 gold badges93 silver badges206 bronze badges




23.1k11 gold badges93 silver badges206 bronze badges










  • 2





    A related question discusses (without coming to a clear conclusion) whether the Supreme Court can void a pardon given as part of a scheme to commit a crime: Could the SCOTUS void a Presidential Pardon?

    – divibisan
    10 hours ago






  • 2





    Another related question: Could a US President abuse their pardon powers to unilaterally make laws?

    – divibisan
    9 hours ago






  • 1





    The pardon for any criminal act committed in taking the land doesn't stop the landowner from enforcing his or her ownership rights in court. That's not a criminal matter, and pardon power has no effect on the outcome. Similarly you can sue for civil damages related to infringement of property rights and perhaps other civil rights.

    – phoog
    5 hours ago






  • 1





    @phoog Tell that the President ;-)

    – gerrit
    4 hours ago












  • 2





    A related question discusses (without coming to a clear conclusion) whether the Supreme Court can void a pardon given as part of a scheme to commit a crime: Could the SCOTUS void a Presidential Pardon?

    – divibisan
    10 hours ago






  • 2





    Another related question: Could a US President abuse their pardon powers to unilaterally make laws?

    – divibisan
    9 hours ago






  • 1





    The pardon for any criminal act committed in taking the land doesn't stop the landowner from enforcing his or her ownership rights in court. That's not a criminal matter, and pardon power has no effect on the outcome. Similarly you can sue for civil damages related to infringement of property rights and perhaps other civil rights.

    – phoog
    5 hours ago






  • 1





    @phoog Tell that the President ;-)

    – gerrit
    4 hours ago







2




2





A related question discusses (without coming to a clear conclusion) whether the Supreme Court can void a pardon given as part of a scheme to commit a crime: Could the SCOTUS void a Presidential Pardon?

– divibisan
10 hours ago





A related question discusses (without coming to a clear conclusion) whether the Supreme Court can void a pardon given as part of a scheme to commit a crime: Could the SCOTUS void a Presidential Pardon?

– divibisan
10 hours ago




2




2





Another related question: Could a US President abuse their pardon powers to unilaterally make laws?

– divibisan
9 hours ago





Another related question: Could a US President abuse their pardon powers to unilaterally make laws?

– divibisan
9 hours ago




1




1





The pardon for any criminal act committed in taking the land doesn't stop the landowner from enforcing his or her ownership rights in court. That's not a criminal matter, and pardon power has no effect on the outcome. Similarly you can sue for civil damages related to infringement of property rights and perhaps other civil rights.

– phoog
5 hours ago





The pardon for any criminal act committed in taking the land doesn't stop the landowner from enforcing his or her ownership rights in court. That's not a criminal matter, and pardon power has no effect on the outcome. Similarly you can sue for civil damages related to infringement of property rights and perhaps other civil rights.

– phoog
5 hours ago




1




1





@phoog Tell that the President ;-)

– gerrit
4 hours ago





@phoog Tell that the President ;-)

– gerrit
4 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















8















Given that "an impeachable offense is whatever half of the House of Representatives considers it to be", impeachment could be a possible remedy if a President's actions were flagrantly immoral and/or sufficiently unpopular. The Constitution says that a president can be impeached and removed if they commit "high crimes or misdemeanors", but this term is not defined elsewhere in the constitution, and was understood by (at least some of) the Founders to be a catch-all for any betrayal of the public trust.




Contemporaneous comments on the scope of impeachment are persuasive as to the intention of the framers. In Federalist No. 65, Alexander Hamilton described the subject of impeachment as




those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.





In fact, the Founders in fact explicitly considered impeachment to be a remedy for abuse of the pardon power. The possibility of abuse of the pardon power came up during the debates on the Constitution, with George Mason arguing that the President should not have a pardon power lest he pardon those he had conspired with to commit a crime. James Madison pointed out that impeachment would be a valid remedy in such cases. [Thanks to @BradC for providing this link in the comments.]






share|improve this answer






















  • 1





    I agree with the content of your answer, but I think the caveats are unnecessary; impeachment is, and was intended to be by the founders the remedy for abuse of pardon. Regarding your final paragraph; unless you think any impeachment is a "constitutional crisis" (which some do argue), impeaching the president for this kind of abuse is clearly and explicitly anticipated by the constitution.

    – BradC
    8 hours ago






  • 1





    (as evidenced by the "except in cases of impeachment" clause added to the pardon power)

    – BradC
    7 hours ago







  • 1





    This is in fact an empty counter. Most presidents wait until his final hours or days in office to grant the most controversial pardons...

    – dolphin_of_france
    4 hours ago


















2















Theoretically, the congress could try to impeach.



BUT, in reality, presidents often wait until his final days/hours to grant the most controversial pardons.



And once a pardon is granted, there is no recall of the pardon.



Therefore, there is really no checks to pardon power, making it the most KING like power the presidency holds.






share|improve this answer



























    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "475"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f44043%2fwhat-checks-exist-against-overuse-of-presidential-pardons-in-the-usa%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    8















    Given that "an impeachable offense is whatever half of the House of Representatives considers it to be", impeachment could be a possible remedy if a President's actions were flagrantly immoral and/or sufficiently unpopular. The Constitution says that a president can be impeached and removed if they commit "high crimes or misdemeanors", but this term is not defined elsewhere in the constitution, and was understood by (at least some of) the Founders to be a catch-all for any betrayal of the public trust.




    Contemporaneous comments on the scope of impeachment are persuasive as to the intention of the framers. In Federalist No. 65, Alexander Hamilton described the subject of impeachment as




    those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.





    In fact, the Founders in fact explicitly considered impeachment to be a remedy for abuse of the pardon power. The possibility of abuse of the pardon power came up during the debates on the Constitution, with George Mason arguing that the President should not have a pardon power lest he pardon those he had conspired with to commit a crime. James Madison pointed out that impeachment would be a valid remedy in such cases. [Thanks to @BradC for providing this link in the comments.]






    share|improve this answer






















    • 1





      I agree with the content of your answer, but I think the caveats are unnecessary; impeachment is, and was intended to be by the founders the remedy for abuse of pardon. Regarding your final paragraph; unless you think any impeachment is a "constitutional crisis" (which some do argue), impeaching the president for this kind of abuse is clearly and explicitly anticipated by the constitution.

      – BradC
      8 hours ago






    • 1





      (as evidenced by the "except in cases of impeachment" clause added to the pardon power)

      – BradC
      7 hours ago







    • 1





      This is in fact an empty counter. Most presidents wait until his final hours or days in office to grant the most controversial pardons...

      – dolphin_of_france
      4 hours ago















    8















    Given that "an impeachable offense is whatever half of the House of Representatives considers it to be", impeachment could be a possible remedy if a President's actions were flagrantly immoral and/or sufficiently unpopular. The Constitution says that a president can be impeached and removed if they commit "high crimes or misdemeanors", but this term is not defined elsewhere in the constitution, and was understood by (at least some of) the Founders to be a catch-all for any betrayal of the public trust.




    Contemporaneous comments on the scope of impeachment are persuasive as to the intention of the framers. In Federalist No. 65, Alexander Hamilton described the subject of impeachment as




    those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.





    In fact, the Founders in fact explicitly considered impeachment to be a remedy for abuse of the pardon power. The possibility of abuse of the pardon power came up during the debates on the Constitution, with George Mason arguing that the President should not have a pardon power lest he pardon those he had conspired with to commit a crime. James Madison pointed out that impeachment would be a valid remedy in such cases. [Thanks to @BradC for providing this link in the comments.]






    share|improve this answer






















    • 1





      I agree with the content of your answer, but I think the caveats are unnecessary; impeachment is, and was intended to be by the founders the remedy for abuse of pardon. Regarding your final paragraph; unless you think any impeachment is a "constitutional crisis" (which some do argue), impeaching the president for this kind of abuse is clearly and explicitly anticipated by the constitution.

      – BradC
      8 hours ago






    • 1





      (as evidenced by the "except in cases of impeachment" clause added to the pardon power)

      – BradC
      7 hours ago







    • 1





      This is in fact an empty counter. Most presidents wait until his final hours or days in office to grant the most controversial pardons...

      – dolphin_of_france
      4 hours ago













    8














    8










    8









    Given that "an impeachable offense is whatever half of the House of Representatives considers it to be", impeachment could be a possible remedy if a President's actions were flagrantly immoral and/or sufficiently unpopular. The Constitution says that a president can be impeached and removed if they commit "high crimes or misdemeanors", but this term is not defined elsewhere in the constitution, and was understood by (at least some of) the Founders to be a catch-all for any betrayal of the public trust.




    Contemporaneous comments on the scope of impeachment are persuasive as to the intention of the framers. In Federalist No. 65, Alexander Hamilton described the subject of impeachment as




    those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.





    In fact, the Founders in fact explicitly considered impeachment to be a remedy for abuse of the pardon power. The possibility of abuse of the pardon power came up during the debates on the Constitution, with George Mason arguing that the President should not have a pardon power lest he pardon those he had conspired with to commit a crime. James Madison pointed out that impeachment would be a valid remedy in such cases. [Thanks to @BradC for providing this link in the comments.]






    share|improve this answer















    Given that "an impeachable offense is whatever half of the House of Representatives considers it to be", impeachment could be a possible remedy if a President's actions were flagrantly immoral and/or sufficiently unpopular. The Constitution says that a president can be impeached and removed if they commit "high crimes or misdemeanors", but this term is not defined elsewhere in the constitution, and was understood by (at least some of) the Founders to be a catch-all for any betrayal of the public trust.




    Contemporaneous comments on the scope of impeachment are persuasive as to the intention of the framers. In Federalist No. 65, Alexander Hamilton described the subject of impeachment as




    those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.





    In fact, the Founders in fact explicitly considered impeachment to be a remedy for abuse of the pardon power. The possibility of abuse of the pardon power came up during the debates on the Constitution, with George Mason arguing that the President should not have a pardon power lest he pardon those he had conspired with to commit a crime. James Madison pointed out that impeachment would be a valid remedy in such cases. [Thanks to @BradC for providing this link in the comments.]







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited 7 hours ago

























    answered 8 hours ago









    Michael SeifertMichael Seifert

    7584 silver badges8 bronze badges




    7584 silver badges8 bronze badges










    • 1





      I agree with the content of your answer, but I think the caveats are unnecessary; impeachment is, and was intended to be by the founders the remedy for abuse of pardon. Regarding your final paragraph; unless you think any impeachment is a "constitutional crisis" (which some do argue), impeaching the president for this kind of abuse is clearly and explicitly anticipated by the constitution.

      – BradC
      8 hours ago






    • 1





      (as evidenced by the "except in cases of impeachment" clause added to the pardon power)

      – BradC
      7 hours ago







    • 1





      This is in fact an empty counter. Most presidents wait until his final hours or days in office to grant the most controversial pardons...

      – dolphin_of_france
      4 hours ago












    • 1





      I agree with the content of your answer, but I think the caveats are unnecessary; impeachment is, and was intended to be by the founders the remedy for abuse of pardon. Regarding your final paragraph; unless you think any impeachment is a "constitutional crisis" (which some do argue), impeaching the president for this kind of abuse is clearly and explicitly anticipated by the constitution.

      – BradC
      8 hours ago






    • 1





      (as evidenced by the "except in cases of impeachment" clause added to the pardon power)

      – BradC
      7 hours ago







    • 1





      This is in fact an empty counter. Most presidents wait until his final hours or days in office to grant the most controversial pardons...

      – dolphin_of_france
      4 hours ago







    1




    1





    I agree with the content of your answer, but I think the caveats are unnecessary; impeachment is, and was intended to be by the founders the remedy for abuse of pardon. Regarding your final paragraph; unless you think any impeachment is a "constitutional crisis" (which some do argue), impeaching the president for this kind of abuse is clearly and explicitly anticipated by the constitution.

    – BradC
    8 hours ago





    I agree with the content of your answer, but I think the caveats are unnecessary; impeachment is, and was intended to be by the founders the remedy for abuse of pardon. Regarding your final paragraph; unless you think any impeachment is a "constitutional crisis" (which some do argue), impeaching the president for this kind of abuse is clearly and explicitly anticipated by the constitution.

    – BradC
    8 hours ago




    1




    1





    (as evidenced by the "except in cases of impeachment" clause added to the pardon power)

    – BradC
    7 hours ago






    (as evidenced by the "except in cases of impeachment" clause added to the pardon power)

    – BradC
    7 hours ago





    1




    1





    This is in fact an empty counter. Most presidents wait until his final hours or days in office to grant the most controversial pardons...

    – dolphin_of_france
    4 hours ago





    This is in fact an empty counter. Most presidents wait until his final hours or days in office to grant the most controversial pardons...

    – dolphin_of_france
    4 hours ago













    2















    Theoretically, the congress could try to impeach.



    BUT, in reality, presidents often wait until his final days/hours to grant the most controversial pardons.



    And once a pardon is granted, there is no recall of the pardon.



    Therefore, there is really no checks to pardon power, making it the most KING like power the presidency holds.






    share|improve this answer





























      2















      Theoretically, the congress could try to impeach.



      BUT, in reality, presidents often wait until his final days/hours to grant the most controversial pardons.



      And once a pardon is granted, there is no recall of the pardon.



      Therefore, there is really no checks to pardon power, making it the most KING like power the presidency holds.






      share|improve this answer



























        2














        2










        2









        Theoretically, the congress could try to impeach.



        BUT, in reality, presidents often wait until his final days/hours to grant the most controversial pardons.



        And once a pardon is granted, there is no recall of the pardon.



        Therefore, there is really no checks to pardon power, making it the most KING like power the presidency holds.






        share|improve this answer













        Theoretically, the congress could try to impeach.



        BUT, in reality, presidents often wait until his final days/hours to grant the most controversial pardons.



        And once a pardon is granted, there is no recall of the pardon.



        Therefore, there is really no checks to pardon power, making it the most KING like power the presidency holds.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 4 hours ago









        dolphin_of_francedolphin_of_france

        2464 bronze badges




        2464 bronze badges






























            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f44043%2fwhat-checks-exist-against-overuse-of-presidential-pardons-in-the-usa%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Canceling a color specificationRandomly assigning color to Graphics3D objects?Default color for Filling in Mathematica 9Coloring specific elements of sets with a prime modified order in an array plotHow to pick a color differing significantly from the colors already in a given color list?Detection of the text colorColor numbers based on their valueCan color schemes for use with ColorData include opacity specification?My dynamic color schemes

            Invision Community Contents History See also References External links Navigation menuProprietaryinvisioncommunity.comIPS Community ForumsIPS Community Forumsthis blog entry"License Changes, IP.Board 3.4, and the Future""Interview -- Matt Mecham of Ibforums""CEO Invision Power Board, Matt Mecham Is a Liar, Thief!"IPB License Explanation 1.3, 1.3.1, 2.0, and 2.1ArchivedSecurity Fixes, Updates And Enhancements For IPB 1.3.1Archived"New Demo Accounts - Invision Power Services"the original"New Default Skin"the original"Invision Power Board 3.0.0 and Applications Released"the original"Archived copy"the original"Perpetual licenses being done away with""Release Notes - Invision Power Services""Introducing: IPS Community Suite 4!"Invision Community Release Notes

            199年 目錄 大件事 到箇年出世嗰人 到箇年死嗰人 節慶、風俗習慣 導覽選單