I think the solution begins with being far less polite and patient.
And that is as much of that opinion as I will share.
The most important constitutional reform needed is to put nuclear weapons authorization in the hands of a committee rather than one person. This wouldn’t stop another Trump from taking power but would reduce the danger once in power.
The most likely to pass constitutional reform is limiting the pardon power. I’m ambivalent about that because, in the abstract, I like having fewer people in prison. But maybe pardon power will be given it’s own committee.
Being a federal politician should hold you to the same standards that lawyers are held to where they can be disbarred for things like lying, unethical behavior, conflicts of interest etc.
Also you should have to pass the same background checks to become a politician that you need to pass to get security clearance in the military or intelligence agencies.
That would eliminate a lot of our problems IMO.
The real key is to limit who the president can pardon. Cronies, family members, and the like could be excluded. Make it so that pardons for offenses against members of the other two branches have to be ratified by the branch offended against, by a supermajority requirement. Curb preemptive pardons by forcing a pardon to specify the act that the pardon is granted in order to negate.
I’m not sure you could figure out a way to exclude bribery-for-pardon deals, but if you can also put some teeth into the emoluments clause, that would reduce the incentive for such behavior.
The problem is who do you put in the loop if there’s a two-key rule on ordering a launch? The Vice President? The Secretary of Defense? The National Security Advisor? None of the current occupants of these positions are going to defy Trump. And I don’t think the average future occupant of one of these positions would defy some future President.
Pardons should be for the unjustly convicted. Preemptive pardons for waves hands in the air offenses are bullshit in a non-corrupt nation of laws.
Require the person getting the pardon to make a complete, public confession of what they did, and why. Anything they leave out can still be charged later.
I am not sure about that. And your objection seems to concede that past occupants of these positions would defy Trump.
Consider:
Why? Change the Constitution and go against Common law for one bad president?
We passed three entire constitutional amendments because of one bad Supreme Court justice.
Which are?
Once again, and for the upteenth time, this has bupkis to do with the actions of Trump, and almost everything to do with trying to prevent, as much as is humanly possible, the chance of that and other ridiculous fiascos from happening again. That is the purpose of this thread.
Yes, one bad president is abusing a power, and this naturally gives cause for people to consider amendments on that very power. Amendments are typically a response to something happening that we want to prevent from happening again. It can be the actions of a President, or the actions of a political party, or the actions in some other branch (Judges, for instance). This is one of the reasons we have amendments…to stop something from happening “again”…
I genuinely don’t understand your point, here; if two presidents use the pardon power in ways we disapprove of, do you think it’d then make sense to discuss an Amendment?
Do you think we should avoid making changes (a) even while the number is at zero, (b) in hopes of sensibly staving off a potential problem?
Nice cite, but it doesnt seem to mention
45 Presidents, and one abused that Pardon system.
And then what will happen is that you get a progressive president that (for example) wants to commute the sentences of all non-violent Marijuana federal prisoners, and a Republican congress that overrules him. Or some other legit prisoner, but Congress for purely political reasons, objects.
Again: if two get around to abusing it, could that prompt you to reconsider? Is there something magical about the number one, that you think should keep people from learning from it?
Since that hasnt happened, no answer. But in any case, the checks on the power suggested here really mean that a president whose politics differ from congress cant pardon anyone.
You cant get a good legal definition of “Cronies, family members, and the like” in anything short of several thousand words.
Cronies - anyone who has accepted money for services from the president, a company he controls, or his administration.
Family members - anyone who has one parent or grandparent who is the president or the president’s parent or grandparent, or anyone married to such a person.
I seem to have at least 961 words left to go.
So, no members of the Military? Or any government contractors? Or Civil servants? That excludes about 8 million Americans, not counting their families. And IANAL, but I know any decent lawyer could drive a steam train through those.
Let us get off the pardon thing for now, see what other ideas we have?