I have been wondering:
What would it take to abolish the Presidential prerogative to concede pardons on federal crimes without any limit or supervision. Is this prerogative enshrined in the Constitution? Is there any way to revoke a presidential pardon?
Are there more articles like this one, explaining one concrete case of a more than dubious pardon by Mr. Trump? Perhaps even a book? And no, I am not really interested in comparisons with Mr. Clinton’s pardon of Mr. Rich.
Assuming it could be proven to the satisfaction of a competent tribunal after due process that one concrete case of pardon was granted for money, and assuming further that the former president is immune from prosecution for corruption during his tenure, could the intermediaries be prosecuted? I am thinking in the case the article refers to primarely of Mr. Dershowitz and Mr. Kushner, but there probably were others too.
So it is written in the Constitution. IANAL, but that seems equivalent to “we establish a separation of powers, but the Executive can override the Legilative (no matter what they forbid, the President may allow it on a case by case basis without due process) and the Judicative (no matter who they condemn, the President may nullify this conviction without any limit).”
But if it is written in the Constitution it is almost impossible to amend: the hurdles are too high.
Seems strange to me, but other countries have Presidential or Royal pardons too. It is just that they are seldom blatantly abused.
Whenever someone uses pardons to create a “Clinton is an ahole” or “Trump is an ahole” thread, posters here delve through history and show that questionable pardons are a time-honored tradition used by almost every president. The real issue is not “Oh my garsh. President X pardoned Y Z. Ah do believe I’m getting the vapours.” The real question, and one I think the OP is really getting at, is: Is the unlimited power of the presidential pardon re: federal crimes a bug or a feature. I, for one, think it’s a feature.
But not recently: the 27th Amendment was adopted 1992, and it only concerned the remuneration of the members of Congress. The 26th was in 1971 and concerned the voting age. (Yes, I had to google it).
Indeed, I should have made it clear that this is about the Presidential Pardon as an institution, or as a system if you prefer. It is not really about Mr. Trump, although his extreme behaviour makes an excellent arguing point, nor about Mr. Clinton, although the case of Mr. Rich stinks. I wonder whether it ever seemed a good idea to grant this unchecked power to an individuum, how it came to be, and how it could be changed/abolished if people think it should be changed/abolished at all.
Could Mr. Trumps scandalous* granting of pardons lead people to push for the abolishment of this constitutional clause?
*He really makes an excellent arguing point because his behaviour is so extreme, but it is not really about him. It is just not possible not to mention him.
Clinton pardoned his brother in addition to Rich.
George H.W. Bush pardoned Armand Hammer, coincidently after a $100,000 contribution.
Reagan pardoned Mark Felt & Edward Miller
Carter banket pardoned all Vietnam draft dodgers. He also pardoned Peter Yarrow for sexual acts with a 13 year old.
Truman pardoned Andrew May and Seymour Weiss (probably because of being influencial Democrats) and World War 2 draft dodgers.
Andrew Johnson pardoned Confederate soldiers.
Lincoln pardoned his sister-in-law
Both Jackson and van Buren were influenced to pardon George Wilson.
If these were not sufficient to get the pardon power repealed, why would the current case be any different? Note: this is not a tu quoque argument. I’m using it to show the historicality of horrible pardons yet no one has ever suggested we remove the power at a federal level.
So you don’t see a last straw breaking the camel’s back? Can there not be a scandal too much, a pardon too far? Because pardoning Vietnam and WWII draft dodgers, as well as Confederate soldiers seems reasonable to me: sooner or later a step like that is necessary for reconciliation. But that could have been done with a law approved by Congress and it would seem much more legitimate - at least tht is what I think would be the chosen procedure in most European countries. Pardoning a brother or a sister-in-law is bad, but not really scandalous. Petty pardons? Most other names you cited are unknown to me but it seems they point in the same direction: the individual pardons are more or less bad and open to corruption - a few may even be good, but the Institution of the Presidential Pardon seems flawed in principle.
Could a campaign not push for the abolition of this archaism? Imagine Fox News making it a thing after the next pardon by a democrat. As a hypothetical: it can’t be so difficult to find a case of someone that was pardoned and went to act horribly afterwards, without giving any examples I can imagine what could make their viewers angry. Could such a campaign not suceed? Is there a comparably influencial media entity on the left that could not do the same, perhaps even with an overlapping theme or case?
In my opinion the pardon power should be used more, not less. There are probably 1000s of federal prisoners, and more state prisoners, who could be released tomorrow with little ill effect.
But, if you want an amendment to remove that power from the President, watch it happen if Biden pardons his son.
And proposed by Congress in 1789; took 203 years for ratification; I think that supports your argument. The most recent amendment to be proposed was in 1971.
I agree that there are too many prisoners in the USA: you have the highest incarceration rate in the world bar Russia, El Salvador and China (citing from memory, but not far off). But the Persidential Pardon is not the right instrument to correct that flaw in your legal system! That is adressing the symptoms, not the underlying cause, and adressing them in a unsystematic, arbitrary manner. That opens the door to cronyism, nepotism, racism… you name it.
It is your country, not mine, I am just asking a question, it is not up to me to decide on this matter. But your suggestion feels wrong to me.
No because as I’ve stated before, I and many others view pardons as a feature not a bug.
I’m more than willing to accept “Fightin’” Joe Arpaio being pardoned if it saves someone from being railroaded by the system. Like an African-American convicted by an all-white jury to 20 years for walking in a neighborhood where drugs are sold. (Yes that’s a state crime probably therefore up to the governor but just go with me on this.)
Most would argue set at the perfect height. It allowed for almost 30 amendments to pass yet doesn’t have the issue many countries and states have with over 100 amendments since it is so easy to do.
Whatever your flaws, lack of self-assurance and modesty is not among them Sorry, I find your arguments not convincing but circular, you come from a very different starting point. I take note, scratch my head, will keep on reading. For the moment I feel no wiser than before.
How are they circular?
And one issue may be that the courts (rightfully or wrongfully) amend the Constitution through case law such as the Slaughterhouse Cases or Wickard v Filburn.
When you say that pardons are a feature not a bug it is not an argument, it is like saying it is good because I like it that way. At least that is how it sounds to me. That is circular. You give the example of a wrongfully convicted man who could not be pardoned by the President as an argument, and although it is not an argument because the President is the wrong instance and you say so yourself you ask me “but just go with me on this”. Why? If someone is wrongfully convicted why not improve the appeals procedure instead of pardoning ramdomly? And a pardon is in the last consequence random. I disagree when you imply that you can use the instrument of pardons to combat systemic injustice. “Most would argue set at the perfect height”, but why? Because you like it as it is and it was not amended too often? That is circular too. You complain and point the finger at other countries that have amended their Constitutions over 100 times? Really? Which ones? And is or would that really that bad, if it improved the law?
Concerning your point about amending the Constitution through the courts: that is why I asked whether a Presidential Pardon can be revoked. Or at least appealed. Could the courts change the system of pardons? If so: how? Could SCOUTUS or a lower tribunal declare a pardon inadmissible, void, nil, wrong, or unlawful? Who would have standing in such a case? How many instances would it have to go through before a final decision is reached?
Perhaps we can get the GOP to get behind a measure to limit Presidential pardons after Hunter Biden receives his free and full pardon as he approaches the prison walls. Sometimes I think Joe Biden ought to abuse the shit out of the process, pardoning everyone and every crime, until Congress agrees to limit its use somewhat.
Sorry, I find your arguments not convincing but circular, you come from a very different starting point. I take note, scratch my head, will keep on reading. For the moment I feel no wiser than before.