I’m not American and was a baby at the time, so I didn’t remember who was president and never knew the story.
So why would such a lapdog Congress overturn pardons?
What’s a conflict of interest for our purposes? I mean, sure, Roger Clinton doesn’t get pardoned again, but most controversial pardons are going to be difficult to jam into the “conflict of interest” category without defining it broadly enough to allow this “investigator” and Congress to effectively block all pardons.
You’re kidding, right? With a Republican Congress in both houses, it would take something extraordinary to get them to initiate much less approve an impeachment. It would have to be something so outrageous that it would galvanize the public to the point where Congress would be afraid for their political careers if they didn’t do it.
The president couldn’t pardon Manson. He was convicted of murder under California state law. Federal pardon power wouldn’t apply.
I would fix it as follows, by amendment of course:
The president shall have the authority to issue a pardon to anyone convicted of a federal crime, with the exceptions that the president can not pardon himself or herself and cannot pardon anyone that has either worked for him or her or is or was a relative by blood or marriage. Ineligible relatives would the president, the president’s spouse or ex spouse(s), siblings children, grandchildren, or the spouses or ex spouses of siblings, children, or grandchildren. Pardons may not be issued preemptively to anyone under investigation or on trial for a federal crime.
That horse left the barn when the Constitution gave the pardon power to the President, who is a political actor.
So the President chooses who to investigate his pardons?
Does this include anyone who works in the executive branch of government or previously worked in the executive branch of the state government if s/he was a governor before. Or in Trump’s case, for example, anyone who worked in any of his businesses even if he didn’t really run things directly.
This would seem to have prohibited Carter’s pardon of draft dodgers.
Saying that, rather than “conflict of interest” simply leaves the option to defeat the amendment by setting up intermediaries and buffers, between yourself and those who you want to have perform your dirty work. The White House Plumbers, for example, were not the direct employees of Nixon and yet, clearly, a pardon made in their favor would have been a conflict of interest.
That’s very short-term thinking. Don’t think about the now but 20, 30, and 100 years ahead. This is a constitutional amendment, remember.
Congress doesn’t have any time to waste voting on who should be pardoned, or not.
I think it would have to have to be limited to those who have no more than one layer of management below the president at the time of the commission of the crime. It would be difficult to word.
But if one of them was prosecuted, convicted, and pardoned then I think prosecutors would get the idea that prosecution would be pointless.
True enough, but I think you want to preclude pardons for the inner circle.
If an outgoing President wanted to issue pardons in this way and was prevented by such an amendment, I think all you’d accomplish is a Presidential resignation the night before the next inauguration, and the new President issuing those pardons.
I think that focusing on limiting the pardon power is focusing too much on the current ills. In general, pardons are probably egregiously underused. I expect any of us could easily find a thousand people deserving of a pardon who won’t get one for every person actually pardoned.
Wouldn’t they just learn that they need to wait until a new President? This seems like a much worse result, trending away from justice and the rule of law. People will end up with possible crimes hanging over their head for years because prosecutors are waiting for the political winds to change.
Letting Presidents issue pardons that wipe the slate clean for a whole class of people who can then get on with their lives and not live in political peril is an important and good use of the pardon power.
Eventually, there will be someone deserving of a pardon, who just by happenstance happens to be related to the President. In that instance, you would be damning the person because they are the one in 10m people who happens to have a close connection to the President and so cannot ever be pardoned.
I don’t see the advantage to that versus putting the decision in someone else’s hands - as is normal for cases of recusal. If you find 55% too low, then better to simply bump the number higher.
This seems like yet another “we lost the election and hate Trump so let’s change all the rules” thread. Just win the next one and leave 220 years of history alone?
Why can’t Trump just act like our other 44 presidents? A lot of them did a middling to good job; it would be a massive improvement for Trump.
No, it’s more like “look at the ridiculous shit he’s doing with the power.”
I would gladly have supported this amendment at any point in history, regardless of whether the President be George Washington, Teddy Roosevelt, Abe Lincoln, Eisenhower, or Trump. George HW Bush is my favorite President in living memory, and I’d prefer that he hadn’t been able to pardon Caspar Weinberger and I would have gladly submitted and voted for such an amendment after that or as a prelude in order to have stopped that, even despite having no strong opinion on the Iran-Contra Affair either way. It’s simply a clear misuse of the power to use it to pardon those who committed a crime. The office of the Executive is oath-bound to serve the law, not the inverse, and that’s made easier by not seducing them out of purity.
The Constitution was written in a hurry in some parts, and in other parts they were just wrong in their expectation of how things would play out. Making corrections as they become apparent, whether it advantages your side, disadvantages your side, or whatever else is just being a patriot who cares about having the best governance that we can afford ourselves.
I am also not “we”.