Time to limit the Pardon?

[TexasEd 8064]

Is it time to limit the pardon officially codify that not only can a President not pardon themselves, but that they cannot quid pro pardon, or never face consequences for crimes committed in office?

Here are the limits I would make:

• Sitting president cannot pardon themselves. - This power would make them a king since they apparently cannot be tried for crimes while in office so if they pardon themselves they don't face consequences after they leave either.
• President cannot be pardoned for high crimes committed while in office including Sedition and Treason.  I call this the FAAFO rule.  You can't fuck around with democracy and get away with it.  The consequences are too great to let that happen.
• President cannot pardon any person in exchange for something of value.  If the President benefitted personally or politically by the act that person cannot be pardoned (no quid pro pardon). - This is not a do what the president says and get out of jail free card. Not a profit center either. Giuliani cannot be pardoned for illegal acts he made for Trump's benefit, neither could Stone or Flynn because it was to benefit the campaign. The rioters were acting as an extension of Trump's campaign and sought to keep him in office (benefitting Trump); no pardons.

 

Thoughts?

 

Edited January 8, 2021 by TexasEd

[conVINCEd 21468]

Part of me thinks you don’t go rewriting the rule book because of a one-off event.  Another part of me thinks this will not be a one-off event.  Tough call.   I don’t have any problem with what you are proposing.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13414]

There shouldn't be any presidential pardons from Oct 1 - Jan 19th in presidential elections year. If a President has the need to pardon or commute sentences, it should be done well in advance of the election. Even for lame duck President who are not running. And to close a loophole, there cannot be any secret pardons that are announced later. Give a pardon on Sept 30th in my example but not tell anyone until January.  That pardon would be automatically rejected.

And yes, we should clarify that a President cannot pardon themselves. They also shouldn't be able to pardon to someone for a quid pro quo. This might be difficult to enforce or prove, but if it's out there as a restraint, it gives prosecutors the ability to seek nullification of a pardon. This would potentially reverse a pardon for Flynn or Manafort or Stone if a prosecutor could prove quid pro quo.

Sucks that we need to send considerable time in the near future to limit a future Trump.

 

[The Royal We 3065]

I'm very much on board with all of this - particularly not being about to pardon yourself and the Oct 1-Jan 19 dark period.  There should be political consequences for dodgy pardons.

[Js1 85110]

I'm all for a pardon review committee made up of Congressional leaders and randomly selected US attorneys, federal judges and 1 SCOTUS judge to oversee the committee. 

You want to pardon your buddy for campaign finance reform?  Please go explain why to a SCOTUS judge, 2 Senators, 2 reps, 3 US attorneys and 2 randomly selected federal judges before it's final. 

The judges confirm if it's legal

The US attorneys confirm any quid pro quo

The Reps and Senators and the SCOTUS judge are there for an equal check on the executive branch

Edited January 8, 2021 by Js1

[FondrenRoad 4378]

7 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

There shouldn't be any presidential pardons from Oct 1 - Jan 19th in presidential elections year. If a President has the need to pardon or commute sentences, it should be done well in advance of the election. Even for lame duck President who are not running. And to close a loophole, there cannot be any secret pardons that are announced later. Give a pardon on Sept 30th in my example but not tell anyone until January.  That pardon would be automatically rejected.

And yes, we should clarify that a President cannot pardon themselves. They also shouldn't be able to pardon to someone for a quid pro quo. This might be difficult to enforce or prove, but if it's out there as a restraint, it gives prosecutors the ability to seek nullification of a pardon. This would potentially reverse a pardon for Flynn or Manafort or Stone if a prosecutor could prove quid pro quo.

Sucks that we need to send considerable time in the near future to limit a future Trump.

 

Good start.  To make it more manageable as an amendment, I'd say that Presidents should only be able to pardon in the first 3 years of the term.  This puts all the pardons ahead of the election in the first term, and also eliminates late pardons in the 2nd term.  Potentially, a true miscarriage of justice would need to sit in jail for a year sometimes, but that's been happening anyway with the last minute lame duck pardons.  Plus, pardon considerations could be part of the transfer of power, and a leaving President who may want to pardon somebody could give the next President solid reasoning as to why he wants to issue a pardon.  If it looks just, the next President could do it. 

I'd also eliminate self pardons and extend that to family of the President.  Again, if there is a miscarriage of justice affecting a family member, then the next President can pardon them.

Finally, I'd eliminate blanket and non-specific pardons.  They can be for uncharged crimes, but the crimes being pardoned need to be detailed.  No "any and all" clauses.

I'd love to eliminate quid pro quo, but I don't know how you do that successfully.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13414]

I would also add that a former President or VP cannot be pardoned by the next President for at least 1 year of the new President's tenure.  This prevents last minute resignation/VP-to-POTUS pardon of the now-ex-President. It still allows the next President to pardon the former President after some time for reflection and counsel. I know that some argue that the former Prez shouldn't be eligible for pardons but I think that is too restrictive.

[strangulation! 1708]

why do we even have a pardon?

[gsoda3 3236]

Just now, strangulation! said:

why do we even have a pardon?

this, what's the history behind granting one person this power?  why don't the other two branches of gvt have the same power?

[LABEVO 928]

Just now, gsoda3 said:

this, what's the history behind granting one person this power?  why don't the other two branches of gvt have the same power?

miscarriages' of justice happen all the time. we only hear about the bad ones but many presidents use the power to give clemency. 

[TwiceHorn 31282]

2 minutes ago, LABEVO said:

miscarriages' of justice happen all the time. we only hear about the bad ones but many presidents use the power to give clemency. 

At the constitutional convention, it was not without controversy.  Remember, they wanted to eliminate "the king," but they also recognized a need for executive, "kingly" power.

This might be slightly biased, but it has some excerpts from the debate.  https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/2/essays/89/pardon-power

Quote

Alexander Hamilton reflects this in The Federalist No. 74, in which he argues that “[h]umanity and good policy” require that “the benign prerogative of pardoning” be available to mitigate the harsh justice of the criminal code. The pardon power would provide for “exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt.”

 

[TexasEd 8064]

18 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I would also add that a former President or VP cannot be pardoned by the next President for at least 1 year of the new President's tenure.  This prevents last minute resignation/VP-to-POTUS pardon of the now-ex-President. It still allows the next President to pardon the former President after some time for reflection and counsel. I know that some argue that the former Prez shouldn't be eligible for pardons but I think that is too restrictive.

Yeah, I think a president should be eligible but not for Sedition or Treason.  That plays into the Nixon Ford model too hard.  Unintended consequence is the guilty president doubles down and does not leave and forces removal by Impeachment.

Edited January 8, 2021 by TexasEd

[JimmyJames 12271]

The founders were in general smart men but they had a serious brain fart with respect to the pardon power and Dotard is about to shove that mistake right up our ass. Must impeach to still be able to convict all the conspirators involved in the coup attempt. Or at least have a good argument that many of his upcoming pardons are invalid.

[DanTheHorn 4901]

1 hour ago, TexasEd said:

Is it time to limit the pardon officially codify that not only can a President not pardon themselves, but that they cannot quid pro pardon, or never face consequences for crimes committed in office?

Here are the limits I would make:

• Sitting president cannot pardon themselves. - This power would make them a king since they apparently cannot be tried for crimes while in office so if they pardon themselves they don't face consequences after they leave either.
• President cannot be pardoned for high crimes committed while in office including Sedition and Treason.  I call this the FAAFO rule.  You can't fuck around with democracy and get away with it.  The consequences are too great to let that happen.
• President cannot pardon any person in exchange for something of value.  If the President benefitted personally or politically by the act that person cannot be pardoned (no quid pro pardon). - This is not a do what the president says and get out of jail free card. Not a profit center either. Giuliani cannot be pardoned for illegal acts he made for Trump's benefit, neither could Stone or Flynn because it was to benefit the campaign. The rioters were acting as an extension of Trump's campaign and sought to keep him in office (benefitting Trump); no pardons.

 

Thoughts?

 

I would add the following in addition to the three above since it leaves no room for interpretation.

President cannot pardon any person that works or worked in the executive branch during his administration. 

Now such a rule would mean that all federal workers become ineligible for pardons. So additional language would have to be setup that says the president can recommend a pardon for persons excluded by the clause above to a 9 person pardon panel of 4 senators from the minority parties and 5 senators from the majority party and require a 2/3 vote for approval. Such a panel would only be able to consider presidential recommendations.

Edited January 8, 2021 by DanTheHorn

[CooterBrown 17911]

Elected officials at any level shouldn’t be eligible for a pardon.

[TexasEd 8064]

54 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

Elected officials at any level shouldn’t be eligible for a pardon.

my concern with this is unintended consequences when getting them to resign may be the expeditions route.  there should be certain crimes that people cannot be pardoned for but not a blanket restriction

Edited January 8, 2021 by TexasEd

[TexasEd 8064]

Another one:

Clarify by statute that accepting the pardon equals a guilty plea to the crime/charge and restrictions associated with that conviction would be enforced such as:

• ineligible to hold elected office
• loss of voting right
• loss of right to own guns
• ineligible for government employment
• ineligible for positions that require licensing in the area the crime was committed (you're not in jail, isn't that good enough?).  If there was really a miscarriage of justice they can go back through the courts to be cleared.
  • Medical doctors
  • police officers
  • accountants
  • practicing law
  • public education
  • financial advisors

[elfenix 34171]

Much of the problem is that we leave the people who've lost the election sitting in the palace for months afterward. Pardons are just one of many abuses that get rushed through in the last 11 weeks of an administration.

Edited January 8, 2021 by elfenix

[TexasEd 8064]

2 minutes ago, elfenix said:

Much of the problem is that we leave the people who've lost the election sitting in the palace for months afterward. Parsons are just one of many abuses that get rushed through in the last 11 weeks of an administration.

yep, I agree with the no pardons in last year of term.  So they end on Jan 19 in election years.

[Js1 85110]

5 minutes ago, elfenix said:

Much of the problem is that we leave the people who've lost the election sitting in the palace for months afterward. Parsons are just one of many abuses that get rushed through in the last 11 weeks of an administration.

God damn, remember when it was March 4th instead of January 20th? 

Abe Lincoln had to watch 7 states leave the Union as President-Elect.

Like, it no longer takes 11 weeks to count the votes and move to D.C.  They aren't using horse and buggy anymore. 

Edited January 8, 2021 by Js1

[Buzzrock 14871]

The upside is that those who are pardoned are not allowed to take the 5th when questioned about the crime for which they were pardoned. It skips the whole mess of an immunity order and could actually make future investigations much more effective.

[elfenix 34171]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

God damn, remember when it was March 4th instead of January 20th?

no, but armybrat does.

[dingleberryswitzer 2724]

Repped some good posts.  

Always thought the pardon was a weird power.  Seems like in a system of alleged "checks and balances" the pardon is an unchecked power.  

Pardons should be appealable through the courts.  Basically if someone gets a pardon and a prosecutor really doesn't want him to get off scott free , they can essentially force anther trial. 

For minor bullshit it probably isn't worth the time, but for major shit, sure.  

Or allow Congress to object, I guess in a system like the ballots we saw.  If one representative and one senator object then it goes to a vote, or something like that.

[Buzzrock 14871]

Of course the other approach is not to elect any more megalomaniacs who abuse the power. I think Obama had 2,000 or so pardons and commutations vs Trump’s 50 or so. It’s all about how it’s used.

[staboner 4959]

eliminate it altogether. 

[staboner 4959]

or at least for any living person

(best thing dotard did was pardon Jack Johnson)

[Yuk 1509]

I have a better idea. Just abolish the presidency.

[tx 3 putt 76387]

you can not pardon your family

you can not pardon anyone involved with criminal dealings tied to the president 

 

pardon power wasn't an issue until dumbass was in office 

[tx 3 putt 76387]

campaign laws should not be pardonable 

[lemonlime 5503]

Any laws are only as strong as the people wielding them.  We can make as many changes to the pardon power or the Constitution as we want, but if the people in charge of governing our country don't believe in the rule of law it doesn't matter.

If the pardon power were different, trump would just find a different way to abuse it or something else to abuse. There is no legal reform that would stop him. 

[DanTheHorn 4901]

2 hours ago, lemonlime said:

Any laws are only as strong as the people wielding them.  We can make as many changes to the pardon power or the Constitution as we want, but if the people in charge of governing our country don't believe in the rule of law it doesn't matter.

If the pardon power were different, trump would just find a different way to abuse it or something else to abuse. There is no legal reform that would stop him. 

It is not about stopping the president. It about stopping people that work for the next president that will be smarter and try to do what Trump attempted. Just like the lawyers that had consequences to worry about this time around would not claim fraud in court but did on TV all day.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13414]

17 hours ago, TexasEd said:

Another one:

Clarify by statute that accepting the pardon equals a guilty plea to the crime/charge and restrictions associated with that conviction would be enforced such as:

• ineligible to hold elected office
• loss of voting right
• loss of right to own guns
• ineligible for government employment
• ineligible for positions that require licensing in the area the crime was committed (you're not in jail, isn't that good enough?).  If there was really a miscarriage of justice they can go back through the courts to be cleared.
  • Medical doctors
  • police officers
  • accountants
  • practicing law
  • public education
  • financial advisors

In a way, you’re describing the removal of the pardon and just allow commutation of a sentence. The pardon is wiping the slate clean.

[TwiceHorn 31282]

9 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

you can not pardon your family

you can not pardon anyone involved with criminal dealings tied to the president 

 

pardon power wasn't an issue until dumbass was in office 

That's not true.  Every recent president has granted some iffy pardons.  Probably every president ever.

Like everything, Trump takes it to 11.

[TwiceHorn 31282]

8 hours ago, lemonlime said:

Any laws are only as strong as the people wielding them.  We can make as many changes to the pardon power or the Constitution as we want, but if the people in charge of governing our country don't believe in the rule of law it doesn't matter.

If the pardon power were different, trump would just find a different way to abuse it or something else to abuse. There is no legal reform that would stop him. 

Very true.  Laws always represent some "lowest common denominator" on behavior.  If you don't elect people that aspire to be better than merely legal, or barely legal, then the laws aren't going to be much help.

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Very true.  Laws always represent some "lowest common denominator" on behavior.  If you don't elect people that aspire to be better than merely legal, or barely legal, then the laws aren't going to be much help.

If I'm not mistaken, there is a whole genre of film dedicated to barely legal individuals. Not sure if they're elected officials though. I'll do some research and get back to you.

[Macanudo 12927]

I agree with pretty much everything here but would add that anyone pardoned is prohibited from working as a lobbyist or adviser, officially or unofficially, to any elected official. 

Also, any violation of the conditions of the pardon result in immediate charges being brought related to the crime that was pardoned for.

Finally, any future criminal activity results in the reversal of the pardon and charges brought.

No more Roger Stones, Paul Manaforts and Michael Flynns.  

 

[TexasEd 8064]

3 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

In a way, you’re describing the removal of the pardon and just allow commutation of a sentence. The pardon is wiping the slate clean.

Well, it might be necessary since the you're fired guy is weaponizing Flynn, the albino( forgot his name) and others that have been pardoned.  

[Nivek 16859]

Public admission of guilt must be conditional to a pardon. It must be recorded and available to the public with all details disclosed. No redactions, no claims of being classified or in the interest of national security. The pardon only covers the crimes admitted to and cannot extend before the official was sworn into office. All public officials are excluded from statute of limitations.

[Beau Vine 54003]