4 ms·

I think it’s meant as a “check” on the judicial branch - if the head of the executive isn’t okay with the judicial branch’s dicision. But this isn’t really cla

I think it’s meant as a “check” on the judicial branch - if the head of the executive isn’t okay with the judicial branch’s dicision. But this isn’t really clarified, and in practice it’s usually used incredibly ambiguously boardering nefarious.

WealthVsSurvive 6y ago
It might've been a check when the executive did little aside from protecting from foreign invaders. The terms-of-service for what the executive are has changed. It's not only anti-democratic, it's anti-republic as well.
ardy42 6y ago
> I think it’s meant as a “check” on the judicial branch - if the head of the executive isn’t okay with the judicial branch’s dicision. It's also a check of the legislative branch. If someone's convicted under an unjust law, a pardon can restore justice. IIRC, appealing to the leader for justice has a long history that predates the US Constitution. IIRC, such appeals have been an important safety valve, and the formalization of the leader's responses have resulted in whole new bodies of law (e.g. Equity came from the King attempting to correct deficiencies in the Common Law in cases that were appealed to him, then delegating the implementation and processing the appeals made to him to members of his court).