Should the president's right to issue pardons be limited?

[Cyrano]

The U.S. Constitution: Article II, Section 2. "The President ... shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."

Does anyone doubt that before George W. Bush leaves office, he will pardon Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, and every other person involved in the criminal conspiracy that has held rule for the past six years?

George Bush Sr. did it. So did Bill Clinton. However, when do crimes against our country and humanity become so obscene as to be beyond redemption?

Over the past two hundred plus years, virtually every president has used this clause in the constitution to pardon the deeds of some friend, crony or criminal. It's a clause of our constitution that is ripe for abuse, as Gerald Ford showed us when he pardoned Richard Nixon.

But the question in the above headline remains. Do we really want the man who currently occupies the Oval Office to have this power? By virtually any definition, from the Bible, to the Greeks, to the Romans, to Shakespeare, to today, George Bush, and of course Dick Cheney, are as vile as any historic villains.

Do you think we should amend the constitution to eliminate, or at least limit, the presidential right of pardon?

[Demeter]

1. Yes! President May NOT Pardon Anyone On His Payroll

and that includes the VP.

[SoCalDem]

2. Yep.. I have thought this for a long time. they should NEVER

be allowed to pardon anyone in their OWN administration, or anyone who's only been indicted. To be pardonable, a person should have at least served part of their sentence.

"Political" pardons should be "vetted" by joint session of congress.. (secret ballot..yea or nay)

[Selatius]

3. Wouldn't this take a constitutional amendment to strip this power from the president? n/t

[Cyrano]

9. Yes.

[Richard Steele]

27. Yes it would. And I would welcome such an amendment.

Frankly, I see little harm in abolishing the "pardon" completely.

It is ane Presidential power that is completely CONTRARY
to the notion that we are a "nation of LAWS, not a nation of MEN".

[sabbat hunter]

29. keep the pardon

the pardon is an important check on the the judicial branch.

a presidential pardon is what freed people who protested wars, for civil rights. a presidential pardon also helped those who went to canada to avoid the draft during the viet nam war. (President Carter issued a blanket pardon/amnesty remember)
if you even change the constitution to have congress allow to over rule these pardons, we might still to this day have people who are considered fugitives from justice for avoiding the draft.

[Richard Steele]

30. OK, you've got some fine points there.

So how could we keep the pardon in a form that would
limit a law-breaking President's ability to abuse it?

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

32. maybe make it possible for congress to block a pardon

but set a very high stand a super, super majority
most would fail to reach that number, other than your poindexters and richs

[slackmaster]

4. I believe he can't pardon anyone who hasn't even been charged yet

And for the record I am against any limits on Presidential pardons.

President Woodrow Wilson pardoned my paternal grandfather in 1918, when he was serving a 25-year sentence for draft evasion. (He got no competent help to back up his CO claim for World War I.)

My father was born in 1934. If not for that Presidential pardon, I (or I as I am now) would certainly not be here.

[schmuls]

7. Then God help us charge these heinous criminals - so he can attempt

to pardon them - then maybe we can put his mentally ill butt in prison for life.

[flyingfysh]

10. Ford pardoned Nixon for everything

and criminal charges against Nixon had not been filed

[Richard Steele]

28. Pardoned in ADVANCE, for crimes unknown. Ford is hellbound for that act alone.

[Selatius]

11. Woodrow Wilson also is responsible for the persecution of many anti-war activists during the war

He was, in many ways, one of the most authoritarian presidents the US ever had.

http://www.chicora.org/woodrow_wilson.htm

[Ignacio Upton]

33. If you read some of the stuff he said during the war

He makes Bush look conciliatory towards anti-war protestors. The pro-war people of WWI were a lot worse than supporters of Vietnam or Iraq.

[Cyrano]

16. How about a presidential pardon for Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacey?

There are of course cases that rightfully deserve pardons. But what about serial killers? What if we had a president that pardoned the two individuals named above and many more like them. Would you still support the presidential right of pardon?

[slackmaster]

19. Let me know when a president pardons either of those dead guys

And ask me again.

OTOH I seriously doubt Bush would consider pardoning John Wayne Gacy. He was a Democrat.

:hide:

My grandfather was also a Democrat BTW, and far to the left of most.

[Ian David]

5. Maybe this is why Pelosi is insisting there will be no impeachment?

So that Bush can't pardon someone before he himself is indicted?

You can't let your enemy know your timetable!

[MrCoffee]

6. No.

There should be no limitation on the pardon power.

[n2doc]

8. Yes! absolutely.

Why should the executive branch have primacy over the Judicial? At the very least Congress should have the ability to negate the pardon.

[bigmonkey]

12. You can only pardon a convicted criminal.

Trial and sentencing first, no pardon possible before. This would, in a stroke, get rid of a lot of the abuses.

I also agree he should be unable to pardon himself, or anyone who works for him during his administration, but "pardons only for convicted criminals" first.

I would also point out that Ford pardoned Nixon for any crimes he "might have" committed, as did GHWB with Weinberger. As a result, no correction of their possible criminal activity can occur.

This, "no pardons issued except for convicted criminals," is a clarification that the SCOTUS could make, and is the common-sense way of thinking of a pardon. The current situation is intolerable.

Oh, and this power of the pardon is the logical basis of the Bush/Cheney/John Yoo theory of the omnipotent president. Get rid of it, limit it sharply.



Edited to add one more thing.

[MonkeyFunk]

25. That's just not true

one needn't be convicted, or even charged, before receiving a pardon.

Nixon had never been charged before he was pardoned.

Caspar Weinberger had not been conficted before he was pardoned.

[ShaneGR]

13. No.... but I propose a timeline limitation

Thousands of Americans have received pardons for crimes they committed in the past. Many times the crimes were committed years or decades before the pardon was received. In most circumstances, they rebounded from their crimes, paid their debt to society, and their pardons are warranted.

I say put a time limitation, of say five years from date of offense.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

14. Criminals have no right to pardon anyone! eom

[H2O Man]

15. No. Yes.

The Constitution should not be changed by Bush, or for Bush. There is no compelling need to, as the document already has all the options necessary to deal with his ilk.

And yes, I think there is good reason to doubt that he will pardon any, or especially all, of the people in this administration.

[RB TexLa]

17. No

[smomfr]

18. Absolutly take it away from this clown before he pardons Manson

[aquart]

20. Ridiculous. Manson is poor.

Bush doesn't do anything for free.

Presidential pardon power is absolute and good luck with finding anyone willing to change it.

[William769]

21. No.

[conscious evolution]

22. One bright spot

If he does pardon cheney and others that gives the International Criminal Court jurisdiction.

The ICC can only prosecute if the criminals can't be legally prosecuted in their home country.A pardon would render them unprosecutable here.

[tammywammy]

23. No

[WI_DEM]

24. No.

[blm]

26. Crimes of any WH office should be off the list for pardons.

Period.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

31. yes four words: admiral poindexter, mark rich

two cases of last two presidents being corrupt sons of bitches

'Maybe he wasn't Mark Rich enough"
Robbie Robertson at the 2001 Grammys--on why Clinton didn't pardon leonard peltier

[Donald Ian Rankin]

34. Yes, I doubt that very much indeed.

Pardoning Cheney, Rumsfeld etc would be an admission of wrongdoing on their part; I think it vanishingly unlikely Bush will make such an admission.