Posted on 04/18/2018 3:40:53 PM PDT by tcrlaf
For some stupid reason, the founders of our republic decided to design an immensely complicated constitutional system chock-full of checks and balances — on the theory that it was important to prevent power from becoming concentrated in any one part of the government — and then just gave the head of the Executive branch the absolute, unilateral power to nullify all federal laws by handing out “get out of jail free” cards to anyone he wants.
For most of American history, the insane scope of the pardon power has been kept in check by norms, and the understanding that flagrant abuse of the authority would come at a steep political price. But in the Trump era, those guardrails look rather flimsy. The current president has no reverence for governing norms, and has retained the loyal support of his party’s congressional majorities and voting base while engaging in conspicuously corrupt and unhinged behavior on a near daily basis.
The reality that there is little to stop the president from promiscuously exercising his pardon powers to protect his friends and family has shadowed the investigation into his campaign from the beginning. But the concern has grown more prominent in recent weeks, as Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe has enveloped Trump’s longtime fixer Michael Cohen, and reports revealed that the president had floated pardon promises to Michael Flynn and Paul Manafort.
(Excerpt) Read more at nymag.com ...
Why didn’t they do that when obama pardoned all those drug dealers?
I have supported the notion of a check and balance for pardons. Something along the lines of a constitutional amendment that allows for the negation of a pardon if two thirds of the senate dissent. If the person pardoned is not ‘arm’s length’ from the president, or if it smells of corruption or payoff, the Senate (or the House, or either can negate it). Maybe it would not happen often, but the possibility of negation might prevent a ‘deal’ that buys the silence of a convicted crony of a president.
Any federal judge can declare a lawful executive order unconstitutional too, so piss off.
...but will want it back when a democrat gets elected president.
Just pass an ex-post facto law.
Deprive Cohen of constitutional protections.
Because to Democrats’ minds, people around Trump don’t deserve the presumption of innocence.
Sentence first, verdict afterwards. That’s the essence of a political witch hunt.
Was this article written when 0bama was pardoning drug dealers?
5.56mm
If you are going to go this route two thirds is too high.
That is an impossibly high hurdle. It is almost impossible in most cases that you will ever get a two thirds majority to override a pardon.
I doubt that a pardon would ever even be brought to the floor for debate.
Just consider how often a veto is overridden.
How often are judges impeached.
These are things much more consequential.
It is very unlikely that a Senator is going to expend political capital to go against a pardon of a President of his own party to block a pardon.
It’s not worth it.
I think three fifths would be a difficult hurdle to overcome.
Civil war in the near future?
Well he has to get his drugs from someone doesn’t he?
and clinton pardon FALN terrorists who blew up buildings in NYC which resulted in the murder of police...
Okay, I agree with the basic presumption, but but everything after the second comma is BS.
No president has ever been removed from office. Only two presidents have ever been impeached.
A power not exercised does not exist.
Very few judges have ever been removed from office.
Considering the abuses of office of both presidents and judges in the course our history I think that this power of which you speak is a paper tiger.
These scum are always trying to take Trumps rightful power away from him.
There needs to be some sort of check...though not for the Anti-Trump reasons cited.
Moreso for the lame-duck and bribery variants such as the masses in Clinton’s last days.
You gave a good argument for why it SHOLD be 2/3rds.
It should be truly exceptional circumstances.
“unilateral power to nullify all federal laws by handing out “get out of jail free” cards to anyone he wants. “
The law is NEVER nullified by pardons, in continues to ensnare those that break it just as it did before any pardon. Also, it is not always the case that the person being pardoned is handed a “get out of jail free card”. They might not even be in jail, but just have a conviction on record for which they are being pardoned. The writer is an idiot.
And the NY AG is an idiot if he thinks his plan will pass approvingly by the SCOTUS. But it’s New York so what do you expect.
Obama Pardoned dozens of not hundreds of Drug Dealers who used Firearms in the commission of their Crimes.
I must have missed the NYT Editorial.
Uh, it's a power granted the president in the Constitution, idiot. Not a 'loophole'.
It should be truly exceptional circumstances.
I am guessing you don’t know your history.
If Wilson, FDR and the Burger Court in Roe V Wade did not warrant removal from office no one ever will.
The problem I have with your argument is that the circumstances which you speak of have occurred (in my opinion) and yet they have never (or rarely in the case of judges) come to pass.
Like I said before: A power not exercised does not exist.
I am well aware. The system is designed for certain things to take truly and uniquely outrageous acts - of types that should be beyond the reach of simple partisanship.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.