One easy way to cut down on the abuse would be to restrict the pardoning to a specific period of time, such as the first three years of a presidential term. I would favor this. No more "Out the door and you can’t vote against me anymore na na na"s.
Another idea would be to bring others in on the process: a majority of the Senate, for example, or a non-partisan board of pardoners.
Any other ideas, or are you fine with the system as it stands?
Can’t pardon anyone whose misdeeds happened during the president’s term in office or hasn’t been officially charged with an offense.
Ford (or Carter?) pardoned Vietnam draft evaders. I think that was a good move.
Maybe. First three weeks is way too restrictive though. That’s usually a very busy time with a lot of major priorities.
Personally, I’d like to see a lot more pardons of regular people, not just those with friends in high places. While I don’t think passing a restriction is feasible, Presidents shouldn’t be allowed to pardon their co-conspirators, family members, or henchmen.
Yes, that’s why I wrote “first three years.”
It was Carter, and it was an amnesty, not a pardon.
I like the first three years suggestion. But politics being the greasy pole that it is, I cannot see either major party supporting this change. It’s like the electoral college or proportional representation, people sometimes murmur about changing them - but only when they are out of power.
At the very least I’d prohibit them between election day and inauguration. That seems perfectly reasonable to me.
The president’s power to grant pardons for federal crimes derives from Article II, section 2 of the Constitution. It would take a constitutional amendment to limit that power, which I don’t see happening anytime soon.
The President … shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
There already exists a reasonable process to determine who does and does not deserve a pardon, overseen by the Office of the Pardon Attorney within the Department of Justice. Its recommendations are advisory only. In light of the constitutional language above, the president is fully within his authority to ignore its work, or to issue a pardon without even consulting it.
Time for glasses…
Three years sounds good.
It would have to be more than that. You want the voting public to have time to hear the news, the names of those being pardoned, the reasons pro and con, the editorials to be written, etc.
I’d say a month before election day at the least, maybe three.
Unfortunately, due to the nature of the Constitution acting like a suicide pact at times, nothing can be done save an amendment and we’ll never see another amendment in our lifetimes. About the only change I’d make is expressly forbidding the granting of pardons to current and past members of the current administration and their families.
I see this comment from time to time; however, I do not think I have ever seen something that really supports the assertion. Am I mistaken?
Last-minute pardons do seem problematic, but what happens if some miscarriage of justice doesn’t come up until the lame duck period? The current President couldn’t have pardoned it before then, and the new, incoming President is of a different political ideology and doesn’t consider it a miscarriage of justice. Just sucks to be that defendant?
Almost all of the cases I’ve heard about (hedging: actually “all”) involve cases that were adjudicated years ago, the appeals have been exhausted, the pardonee has served time in prison, etc.
@BobLimDem I thought your assertion and my question both important enough to qualify as a Great Debate. Please do weigh in there. Thanks in advance!
I think that the right to pardon is a check on the Judicial and adds a very human element to our criminal justice system and overall I think it should stand despite Trump’s past and threatened future abuse. It is really ultimately a right of the people, to appeal to the highest person in our government, who is elected by the people.
To that effect, for consideration pardon power should end the day or perhaps week before election day and resume on inauguration day. Thus keeping it ultimately a power ‘of the people’.
I’m generally opposed to adding veto points to the operation of the US federal government, and the criminal justice system in this country is not usually afflicted with a surplus of mercy, so I’d be very skeptical that a reform of the pardon process would, on balance, be better than what we have now.
That said, I think a restriction on the pardon power during the lame duck (and last month or so of the campaign) would be perfectly reasonable, but you would also want to add a requirement that pardons and commutation be published before that window (there is currently no requirement that the President announce a pardon, and something like a pre-emptive pardon wouldn’t necessarily have any effects that require it to be disclosed immediately). And just to be safe, you’d probably want to allow the President to retain the power to defer a sentence in that window, so that some urgent miscarriage could at least be kicked into the next president’s hands (subject to his or her political views on the matter) rather than fall through the cracks.
Maybe I missed it up thread, but there still seems to be some confusion on whether or not a President can pardon themselves.
Ummm. No. Just no. That would be absurd.
I find the reverse to be absurd.
The text that gives him that power doesn’t say he can’t pardon me; I take it he can pardon me. The text doesn’t say he can’t pardon you; I take it he can pardon you. The text doesn’t say he can’t pardon himself; I take it he can pardon himself.
We can work to change that, if we don’t like how it’s written; but I can’t bring myself to say that’s not how it’s written, because, well, that is how it’s written, AFAICT.
Annnnddd that’s what needs to change. I’m addressing the OP. ‘Improve Presidential pardons’. IMHO, NO one should be able to pardon themselves. That’s madness.