Pardons

[trustbutverify]

Everybody has the ability to provide a quid pro quo.

I didn't mean the pardoned could pay the president back for being pardoned. I meant the pardon was payback for commiting a crime to benefit the president.
The President can't, for an extreme example, hire a hitman to kill his political opponent, the pardon him after conviction. He shouldn't be allowed to use pardons as a form of payment for services rendered.

 

[trustbutverify]

No because the Constitution was written under the (arguably naive) assumption that the voters would serve as an unspoken, unwritten final check and balance, never electing anyone that was this bad in this way.

The Constitution made allowances for bad Presidents, incompetent Presidents, even evil ones but never accounted for a troll with no fear of reprisals.

The framers assumed that even the "bad" parts of our government would be operating as honest agents with logical agendas.

This is not the case. Trump is not Nixon. Hell he's not even Jefferson Davis. He has no goal beyond "make it all worse."

The point is that, as written, pardon power allows for these types of perversions. That needs to change.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The point is that, as written, pardon power allows for these types of perversions. That needs to change.

That's meaningless. The President is always going to have some level of power he could misuse.

Its up to us to elect President who just won't do that, not change the structure of the government so they can't.

 

[Horatius]

The point is that, as written, pardon power allows for these types of perversions. That needs to change.

But virtually any power, no matter how well-written, is subject to abuse. In the end, all laws and powers come down to people. A person with good intent won't abuse even a poorly-worded law; a person with bad intent will find a way to abuse even a well-written law. And if everyone around that bad person ignores the abuse, or worse yet, actively supports the abuse, then the letter of the law matter not a whit.

Take a look at Dungeons and Dragons. They've spent decades refining their rule books, trying to make the game as perfect as possible, but you still have Rules Lawyers finding loopholes to exploit.

 

[trustbutverify]

That's meaningless. The President is always going to have some level of power he could misuse.

Its up to us to elect President who just won't do that, not change the structure of the government so they can't.

Some level. The implications of the pardon power goes way beyond "some".

 

[trustbutverify]

But virtually any power, no matter how well-written, is subject to abuse. In the end, all laws and powers come down to people. A person with good intent won't abuse even a poorly-worded law; a person with bad intent will find a way to abuse even a well-written law. And if everyone around that bad person ignores the abuse, or worse yet, actively supports the abuse, then the letter of the law matter not a whit.

Take a look at Dungeons and Dragons. They've spent decades refining their rule books, trying to make the game as perfect as possible, but you still have Rules Lawyers finding loopholes to exploit.

It's my opinion the power to pardon, as it currently stands, is beyond the pale in terms of providing opportunities for abuse. It might be permissible for a President to blanket pardon him/herself. We're talking about an elected official possibly being exempt from the rule of law, for any crime commited in office.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It also doesn't specifically spell it out in the Constitution that the President can't win re-election by carving off his opponents face and wearing it as a mask.

Even in something as deep, esoteric, and overly literal as Constitutional Law we reserve the right to go "No you don't get to do that. No it's not written down anywhere we thought it was obvious" and "No you can't pardon yourself" should be on the list.

But this all goes back to what we as a society will tolerate.

 

[Horatius]

It's my opinion the power to pardon, as it currently stands, is beyond the pale in terms of providing opportunities for abuse. It might be permissible for a President to blanket pardon him/herself. We're talking about an elected official possibly being exempt from the rule of law, for any crime commited in office.

Okay, so we rewrite it to explicitly ban a self-pardon.

So, Trump resigns as President, Pence pardons him, then appoints Trump as his new Vice President, and resigns, so that Trump is now President again.

Think this can't happen? Putin could make it happen in Russia. Getting his toadies to help him end-run the rules in this sort of manner is what Putin does, power is just a shell game to him. Trump's toadies aren't quite that obedient, but it wouldn't take much to get them there. Maybe another riot or two? We already have some of the members of Congress claiming they voted to reject the electoral college votes because they feared for their families' safety. It's not that much more of a step to these cowards rubber-stamping anything Trump wants to do.

 

[trustbutverify]

Okay, so we rewrite it to explicitly ban a self-pardon.

So, Trump resigns as President, Pence pardons him, then appoints Trump as his new Vice President, and resigns, so that Trump is now President again.

Think this can't happen? Putin could make it happen in Russia. Getting his toadies to help him end-run the rules in this sort of manner is what Putin does, power is just a shell game to him. Trump's toadies aren't quite that obedient, but it wouldn't take much to get them there. Maybe another riot or two? We already have some of the members of Congress claiming they voted to reject the electoral college votes because they feared for their families' safety. It's not that much more of a step to these cowards rubber-stamping anything Trump wants to do.

I'm aware the letter of the law can't account for everything. But, imo, the sweeping power of the presidential pardon makes perverting the law too easy. Nixon's pardon was criminally obscene, and that's tame compared to what this administration has in mind.

 

[xjx388]

I think Barack Obama said what I think represents the good side of the power of the pardon:

"The power to grant pardons and clemency is one of the most profound authorities granted to the President of the United States. It embodies the basic belief in our democracy that people deserve a second chance after having made a mistake in their lives that led to a conviction under our laws."

He said this after commuting the sentences of a bunch of people for non-violent drug related crimes.

Bill Clinton (and sure, Donald Trump) is an example of the pardon being used badly. He pardoned alot of his friends and other controversial pardons.

With great power comes great responsibility, and all that . . . unfortunately, our Presidents are not written by Stan Lee.

 

[ahhell]

Meh, the pardon power really isn't that sweeping. Mostly its been used sparingly and judiciously and most presidents have had a few late term controversy.

That being said, it should be limited somewhat. At the very least and amendment should clarify that the president can't pardon himself. I don't fault the framers for not thinking that that particular clarification would be needed, nobody else did prior to about 3 years ago.

As I said elsewhere, I think we should also include a congressional ability to overturn a pardon or maybe require congressional approval? Kind of like appointments. Since we're add it, ban pardons between November and February, just to make sure the president and his party can be held accountable for the really bad ones.

 

[Thermal]

Meh, the pardon power really isn't that sweeping. Mostly its been used sparingly and judiciously and most presidents have had a few late term controversy.

That being said, it should be limited somewhat. At the very least and amendment should clarify that the president can't pardon himself. I don't fault the framers for not thinking that that particular clarification would be needed, nobody else did prior to about 3 years ago.

As I said elsewhere, I think we should also include a congressional ability to overturn a pardon or maybe require congressional approval? Kind of like appointments. Since we're add it, ban pardons between November and February, just to make sure the president and his party can be held accountable for the really bad ones.

Sounds pretty good. But on balance, I'd add that a pardonning President should have at a minimum a law degree and write a formal opinion on the legal standing for the pardon.

Can you imagine some silver-spoon real estate developer/reality tv guy overturning a legal procedure on "I feel like it" grounds?

 

[ahhell]

I would absolutely object to the requirement that the president have a law degree. We have to many lawyers running things already. Also, I don't really see the need for a legal reasoning behind a pardon but if you want to require a lawyer draft the document, whatever.

Could you imagine a lawyer righting writing up some pardon on the basis of, he's a rich friend of mine?

 

[JoeMorgue]

//Spitballing suggestion for discussion//

A modified pardon power.

The President can not overturn a conviction, but he would have the right to essentially order a retrial, bypassing all "Double Jeopardy" limitations and could do things like order changes to venue of the trial, things like that. But whatever he orders would still have to be a fair and impartial trial under all the framework already established. He could go "I think the Legal System has made a mistake" but in the end it would still be the Legal System's job to make the final call even the second time.

Basically what if the President could order a specific legal verdict null and void, but not have the power to by fiat make a new only, only the power to restart the process? (And I'm talking once, not over and over until he gets the results he wants.)

ETA: Maybe retain retain the ability to do full on pardons, posthumously, for their symbolism.

 

[Trebuchet]

Oh, a Trumper in our midst!

Can't see anyone else rallying to your call.

You appear to have failed to notice to whom you were replying.

 

[trustbutverify]

Meh, the pardon power really isn't that sweeping. Mostly its been used sparingly and judiciously and most presidents have had a few late term controversy.

That being said, it should be limited somewhat. At the very least and amendment should clarify that the president can't pardon himself. I don't fault the framers for not thinking that that particular clarification would be needed, nobody else did prior to about 3 years ago.

As I said elsewhere, I think we should also include a congressional ability to overturn a pardon or maybe require congressional approval? Kind of like appointments. Since we're add it, ban pardons between November and February, just to make sure the president and his party can be held accountable for the really bad ones.

It is sweeping, as it stands now. The nation's been lucky at the discretion applied up till now. The President should not be able to pardon himself, his VP, his administrative appointments (Cabinet, etc) or their immediate families. The other two branches of government should have a mechanism to challenge pardons if the appearance of collusion is evident (perhaps to the satisfaction of the SC or some other referee.) It should be made as difficult as reasonably possible for the executive to use the pardon as a form of currency, or to satisfy craven self interest. It should be made as difficult as reasonably possible to use the pardon as a political weapon.

 

[Thermal]

I would absolutely object to the requirement that the president have a law degree. We have to many lawyers running things already. Also,I don't really see the need for a legal reasoning behind a pardon but if you want to require a lawyer draft the document, whatever.

Could you imagine a lawyer righting up some pardon on the basis of, he's a rich friendly of mine?

Seriously? You think a conviction should be randomly overturned without legal reasoning?

 

[ahhell]

Seriously? You think a conviction should be randomly overturned without legal reasoning?

I don't think it should be random but I don't see much need for a legal reasoning. Things like, "This old lady has spent enough time in Jail" or "This guy has clearly changed" would generally be fine by me, assuming they're true.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Okay, so we rewrite it to explicitly ban a self-pardon.

So, Trump resigns as President, Pence pardons him, then appoints Trump as his new Vice President, and resigns, so that Trump is now President again.

Think this can't happen? Putin could make it happen in Russia. Getting his toadies to help him end-run the rules in this sort of manner is what Putin does, power is just a shell game to him. Trump's toadies aren't quite that obedient, but it wouldn't take much to get them there. Maybe another riot or two? We already have some of the members of Congress claiming they voted to reject the electoral college votes because they feared for their families' safety. It's not that much more of a step to these cowards rubber-stamping anything Trump wants to do.

Yeah, I'm going to say that this can't happen, currently. It might be able to happen in different circumstances but to appoint a new VP after the position is vacated requires a majority vote in both Houses of Congress. Since the Democrats control the House it would be impossible to get a majority vote in the House to appoint Trump as VP.

"Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress."

Twenty-fifth Amendment: Section 2

 

[PhantomWolf]

It is sweeping, as it stands now. The nation's been lucky at the discretion applied up till now. The President should not be able to pardon himself, his VP, his administrative appointments (Cabinet, etc) or their immediate families.

If the crimes lead to impeachment then they can't.

The other two branches of government should have a mechanism to challenge pardons if the appearance of collusion is evident (perhaps to the satisfaction of the SC or some other referee.)

There is, it's called the SCOTUS. It's just hasn't been used yet to challenge pardons because u until now they have generally been pretty reasonable.

It should be made as difficult as reasonably possible for the executive to use the pardon as a form of currency, or to satisfy craven self interest. It should be made as difficult as reasonably possible to use the pardon as a political weapon.

Technically there is a provision for this in the Constitution. Using a Pardon as payment for a service is essentially Bribery. This is specifically mentioned as a reason for Impeachment.