I don't think there's anything wrong with pardons, and most Presidents have used them responsibly. But should any power of the President be absolute? It wouldn't diminish the interests of justice to establish some provision for Congress to revoke any particular pardon.
Pardons
- Thread starter Thor 2
- Start date
-
- Tags
- presidential pardons
I don't think there's anything wrong with pardons, and most Presidents have used them responsibly. But should any power of the President be absolute? It wouldn't diminish the interests of justice to establish some provision for Congress to revoke any particular pardon.
TurkeysGhost
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
- Messages
- 35,043
I think suspending the pardon power during lame duck sessions could do a fair bit to curtail some of the most nakedly corrupt examples.
Make presidents use the power when there's still the possibility of electoral blowback. The lame duck is only from mid November until inauguration in January, and only occurs every 4 or 8 years. Not an unreasonable limitation to this power.
Make presidents use the power when there's still the possibility of electoral blowback. The lame duck is only from mid November until inauguration in January, and only occurs every 4 or 8 years. Not an unreasonable limitation to this power.
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
Looks as if New York State will pick up the Bannon prosecution from the Feds.
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
Not necessarily a bad idea, but once again, it is dealing with something which may not be an issue if the president were not corrupt.
I can see value in a good president wanting to use a lame-duck period to pardon people who morally should be pardoned, but where the pardon would be politically unpopular. (An example of this would be Obama commuting the sentence of Chelsea Manning.)
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
So fine... change that to "you would see them have the threat of prosecution for years, until the statute of limitations runs out". Perhaps better, but still a problem.
Ideally, the department of justice should function independently from the presidency.
Not necessarily. We don't want the President locking up his opponents. But if he says "Let's not enforce federal marijuana laws in states where it's legal," or "Let's not separate babies from mothers at the border even if the law says we can," or "Let's not send minor criminals to prison if compliance and justice can be fulfilled by alternative means," that's not an abuse of power. That's exercising discretion.
lobosrul5
Philosopher
Wouldn't the entire 2nd term for a president be safe from "electoral blowback"?
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
Not necessarily. Just because the president might not be re-elected does not mean there aren't potential ramifications from granting unpopular pardons.
The president would also want to make sure that his party did not lose congressional seats. And, they would also likely want to make sure their party maintained control of the white house (even if they personally were not running for re-election). Those could be in jeopardy if the president does something voters do not like, and they associate "the party" with "the president".
(S)he may have an effect on the Senate and House mid term elections.
BobTheCoward
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2010
- Messages
- 22,789
What do modern democracies do? Does new zealand give the prime minister pardon power?
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
As a representative of the Crown, the Governor General has executive authority in accordance with section 61 of the constitution and can and pardon offenders. This is known as "The Royal Prerogative of Mercy". He does so on the advice of the Attorney General (a member of Parliament and part of the PM's cabinet).
I'm sure that it works the same way in NZ.
https://www.ag.gov.au/crime/federal-offenders/appeals
Thor 2
Philosopher
That is an example of an unjust law. A law that has been generated by Congress and given the stamp of approval by the POTUS. The law should be overturned in the same way and pardons given and/or sentences reduced by the Judiciary, not a random pardon here or there to someone the POTUS smiles upon.
Thor 2
Philosopher
Another option is to remove the lame duck period entirely.
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,821
Sure, but come on, it's not like there was any actual question here.
How much actual judicial principle does it take to not overturn the results of a Presidential election?
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,821
How about the fact that a large number of the pardoned are politicians who have been convicted of corruption?
Ootta love how the group that wants to "drain the swamp" would think the way to do that is to pardon politicians convicted of corruption. Pretty clearly they have a different concept of what constitutes the political swamp.
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
Unlikely to happen.
Not only would you need to amend the constitution (good luck getting enough states and Congress critters to agree), you would need to change the way the public service functions. (Some countries use a dedicated public service to run government organizations that stays in place between leadership changes. But because the heads of various departments are selected by the incoming administration, there needs to be a period of knowledge transfer)
Sent from my LM-X320 using Tapatalk
Not necessarily. The Constitution sets the date that presidential terms begin and end. But the dates of the election and electoral college meeting are set by law. They could be moved into December. Still a delay, but shorter.