Correct. If they are in fact deserving of a pardon, they can wait until the next administration headed by some whose shilling they did not take.
The first sentence is a refusal to discuss what would happen, because, well, you claim it hasn’t happened yet. The second one is speculating about what would happen, even though it hasn’t happened yet.
I don’t get how you can pair the first sentence with the second.
So … they can elect a 10 year old from Italy to be president? There is no reason to do away with all qualifications to run for office. I think disallowing a multiple felon would have saved us a lot of trouble. Not just trump either. If you’re a crook/rapist/thief you shouldn’t be in high office. Should he have been able to run from a prison cell too?
Read what I said. In no way do I propose doing away with all qualifications. I am fine with those already in place in the Constitution. It is that I see no reason to change them, add more.
Why?
Why not? In other words, I dont see any reason to make big changes for the Constitution. We do need a Voting Rights Amendment, but that’s about it- and even that is not really new law, just codifying stuff.
Why do you want to change it?
Because a functioning constitution would not have allowed a fascist to take over our government.
Biden pardoning his son was an abuse.
Clinton pardoning Mark Rich was an abuse. I am a little uncertain how to codify that, but the rule would be something like that you cannot pardon a campaign contributor, or first order relative of a campaign contributor. The tricky part is that Mark Rich was divorced from the contributor when the contributions were made, even though she still felt loyalty to her ex.
It is an abuse when the President pardons, or commutes the sentence of, an administration official, especially if of their own party. Examples of this that AI provided me include Ford and Nixon, Reagan and W. Mark Felt, Bush the Elder and Caspar Weinberger, and Bush the Younger and Scooter Libby.
I still think the best way to address pardon power instead of writing up lists of who can and can’t be pardoned is to follow Georgia’s model and take it out of the president’s hands altogether.
Agreed, the Constitution should not look like the Code of Federal Regulations going into case by case specifics. If you don’t trust a man to exert a power properly, maybe don’t give it to him. Though perhaps keep the unilateral clemency for commuting capital sentences. And ISTM that depending on how you organize the body in charge of it, that may have to be paired with constitutional affirmation that you CAN create by law posts the POTUS can’t dismiss save for a specified cause that has been proven, not just his dissatisfaction.
I’d like a rule that any person who has to be confirmed by the Senate can only be fired with the consent of the Senate. Maybe set that at a 60-vote margin so that a friendly majority isn’t just acting on the president’s orders. The president should be subordinate to Congress, not the other way around.
And I would not take it there unless you are going to go full parliamentary (in which case you need to nerf the Senate and make the House more representative). If it’s 3 equals it’s 3 equals.
I have a simple fix- the president can only pardon people who have actually been found guilty of something. No preemptive pardons.
Another thing I’d like to see is requiring the two most senior Supreme Court justices to retire at the beginning of each presidential term. This not only would get rid of the old coots but also ensure that we don’t get presidents (like Carter) deprived of naming any justices. Forcing retirements on schedule might also reduce somewhat (how’s that for weasel words?) the chances of presidents naming four or more justices in a single term.
Of course, all this is academic. There is zero chance of any amendments passing in my lifetime.
If a senator dies, resigns or is removed from office, there must be an election for his replacement. Nobody should have the authority to appoint someone to the role.
I dont mind if the remaining term is less than six months. I mean, a special election (which are very costly, in CA $250Million) for one month remaining of a term?
If it’s too short a period, then let it sit vacant until the next election.
Nobody should be Senator by appointment.
I can envision some scenarios where a large number of seats become vacant all at once and it would be impractical to wait for an election to reconstitute the Senate. (Like, say, if the fourth plane on 9/11 had reached its intended target.)
Perhaps a senatorial order of succession could be established.
As Darth Cheney said, “You can’t make an omelet without breaking some eggs.”
This is something I’ve wondered about, as well: Why couldn’t there be vice-senators or equivalent? Perhaps even vice-representatives. Then the “out for months for no reason” stuff wouldn’t be as much of an issue.
Am I crazy, or were long unexplained absences by US senators and representatives just not much of a thing pre-Trump? I feel like (with no stats or information) that it practically never happened – no more than two or three times – since, I don’t know, the 1960s?