4 ms·

> it's one of the checks and balances On the judicial, so it would be great if it was also subject to Congressional approval. It would still fulfill its purpos

by ric2b 6y ago

> it's one of the checks and balances On the judicial, so it would be great if it was also subject to Congressional approval. It would still fulfill its purpose.

saalweachter 6y ago
As much as I disagree with some pardons, I think the negative effects of looping in Congress would outweigh the positive. Sometimes pardons are politically unpopular even when they are right or justly merciful. Pardoning someone who embarrassed the government, for instance -- I can easily imagine a majority of Congress choosing to deny Chelsea Manning's commutation. It's a bit of a parallel to the "better a hundred guilty go free, than one innocent suffer" philosophy that is supposed to rule the court system -- I'd rather the pardon be flawed in being too generous than too stingy with its mercy.
- orblivion 6y ago
  What if the president pardoned literally... everybody. I wonder what would happen. Maybe he got drunk and wrote something down and handed it to somebody. It's such a simple action, nobody can stop it, he can't take it back when he comes to his senses. Would the system even respond to it? Would they just open all the federal prisons?
  - flowerlad 6y ago
    > What if the president pardoned literally... everybody Or worse, had someone murder his political opponent and then pardoned him? This sort of thing was unthinkable a few years ago, but no longer.
    - jerkstate 6y ago
      We have had prior presidents commute sentences of people who bombed the senate while the other party had a majority, so your nightmare scenario has basically already happened (but the shoe was on the other foot)
    - the_reformation 6y ago
      Yeah who knows what Biden could get up to.
    - ghastmaster 6y ago
      Federalist Paper #69 Specifically mentions this over 200 years ago. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed69.asp https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed69.asp > ...If a governor of New York, therefore, should be at the head of any such conspiracy, until the design had been ripened into actual hostility he could insure his accomplices and adherents an entire impunity...
  - wl 6y ago
    Pardons don't work like that. They have to actually be delivered to the recipient to be effective. Pardoning everybody would be a massive printing and mailing operation.
    - lotsofpulp 6y ago
      Considering the amount of junk mail I and everyone else get for free, it doesn't seem like a big hurdle.
    - ghaff 6y ago
      "On January 21, 1977, U.S. President Jimmy Carter grants an unconditional pardon to hundreds of thousands of men who evaded the draft during the Vietnam War."
      - wl 6y ago
        Carter was effectively offering a pardon to any eligible person who wanted it. Affected people still had to request the certificate for the pardon to have any legal effect. An example: https://www.dcourier.com/news/2019/nov/10/veterans-day-dan-fallon/ https://www.dcourier.com/news/2019/nov/10/veterans-day-dan-f...
  - lumost 6y ago
    A blanket pardon, unbounded pardon, issued without a backing legal theory would amount to overruling both the justice branch and the legislative branch. District Attorneys, the FBI and other agency's responsible for prosecuting crimes report to the President as part of the executive. Each has broad discretionary power on which crimes they prosecute, what sentence they seek, and what deals get cut. The president having some authority to wave crimes goes along with this ( and also short-circuits the president manipulating law enforcement for their own purposes ). If the president one day decided that he didn't want the executive branch to enforce the law and pardoned everyone... well they'd be impeached quickly, and the supreme court would almost certainly rule that the president doesn't have the power to pardon everyone. Assuredly an injunction would be issued to block the pardon coming into force.
- epage 6y ago
  Maybe it should require a supermajority, like it does to override a veto. That way its only in more extreme cases that congress can interfere.
- slowmovintarget 6y ago
  The pardon and its exercise are yet another reason to be sure that the person you're sending in to the job will exercise the power responsibly. I agree that there should be no check on the power to pardon. There can't be because Congress does have the power to convict in some rare cases. The check is on the legislative as well as on the judicial branch.

by ric2b 6y ago

> it's one of the checks and balances On the judicial, so it would be great if it was also subject to Congressional approval. It would still fulfill its purpose.

saalweachter 6y ago

As much as I disagree with some pardons, I think the negative effects of looping in Congress would outweigh the positive. Sometimes pardons are politically unpopular even when they are right or justly merciful. Pardoning someone who embarrassed the government, for instance -- I can easily imagine a majority of Congress choosing to deny Chelsea Manning's commutation. It's a bit of a parallel to the "better a hundred guilty go free, than one innocent suffer" philosophy that is supposed to rule the court system -- I'd rather the pardon be flawed in being too generous than too stingy with its mercy.

orblivion 6y ago
What if the president pardoned literally... everybody. I wonder what would happen. Maybe he got drunk and wrote something down and handed it to somebody. It's such a simple action, nobody can stop it, he can't take it back when he comes to his senses. Would the system even respond to it? Would they just open all the federal prisons?
- flowerlad 6y ago
  > What if the president pardoned literally... everybody Or worse, had someone murder his political opponent and then pardoned him? This sort of thing was unthinkable a few years ago, but no longer.
  - jerkstate 6y ago
    We have had prior presidents commute sentences of people who bombed the senate while the other party had a majority, so your nightmare scenario has basically already happened (but the shoe was on the other foot)
  - the_reformation 6y ago
    Yeah who knows what Biden could get up to.
  - ghastmaster 6y ago
    Federalist Paper #69 Specifically mentions this over 200 years ago. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed69.asp https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed69.asp > ...If a governor of New York, therefore, should be at the head of any such conspiracy, until the design had been ripened into actual hostility he could insure his accomplices and adherents an entire impunity...
- wl 6y ago
  Pardons don't work like that. They have to actually be delivered to the recipient to be effective. Pardoning everybody would be a massive printing and mailing operation.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    Considering the amount of junk mail I and everyone else get for free, it doesn't seem like a big hurdle.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    "On January 21, 1977, U.S. President Jimmy Carter grants an unconditional pardon to hundreds of thousands of men who evaded the draft during the Vietnam War."
    - wl 6y ago
      Carter was effectively offering a pardon to any eligible person who wanted it. Affected people still had to request the certificate for the pardon to have any legal effect. An example: https://www.dcourier.com/news/2019/nov/10/veterans-day-dan-fallon/ https://www.dcourier.com/news/2019/nov/10/veterans-day-dan-f...
- lumost 6y ago
  A blanket pardon, unbounded pardon, issued without a backing legal theory would amount to overruling both the justice branch and the legislative branch. District Attorneys, the FBI and other agency's responsible for prosecuting crimes report to the President as part of the executive. Each has broad discretionary power on which crimes they prosecute, what sentence they seek, and what deals get cut. The president having some authority to wave crimes goes along with this ( and also short-circuits the president manipulating law enforcement for their own purposes ). If the president one day decided that he didn't want the executive branch to enforce the law and pardoned everyone... well they'd be impeached quickly, and the supreme court would almost certainly rule that the president doesn't have the power to pardon everyone. Assuredly an injunction would be issued to block the pardon coming into force.
epage 6y ago
Maybe it should require a supermajority, like it does to override a veto. That way its only in more extreme cases that congress can interfere.
slowmovintarget 6y ago
The pardon and its exercise are yet another reason to be sure that the person you're sending in to the job will exercise the power responsibly. I agree that there should be no check on the power to pardon. There can't be because Congress does have the power to convict in some rare cases. The check is on the legislative as well as on the judicial branch.