3 ms·
>Congress could have passed acts granting blanket pardons to all involved. That's just a slightly different method of doing the same thing. I agree involving C
by yyyk 6y ago
>Congress could have passed acts granting blanket pardons to all involved.
That's just a slightly different method of doing the same thing. I agree involving Congress in pardons would make sense.
>It might have been better for the rule of law if he had been convicted and removed forcibly, then subject to prosecution.
It would have also involved more chaos in an already chaotic time, is that better than him resigning? I guess we'll never know.
- triceratops 6y agoCongress granting pardons is different. It's limited in scope and has a higher bar, since it requires the assent of a majority of the legislative branch. What's chaotic about punishing a lawbreaking president? Sounds pretty lawful to me. It's how healthy democracies are supposed to operate. Pardoning Nixon set a bad precedent.
- yyyk 6y agoIt's not so limited in scope, Congress could pardon half the felonies in the law book. It's only limited because Congress does yet have the authority to pardon people already in bars (or does it? I could be wrong here), but that could be changed. As for Nixon, not pardoning him would have led to some very messy politics (does he even quit?) in the middle of the oil crisis/price controls/etc. I have no idea how it would have played out, but the US needed at the time a functioning presidency (more than usual).