3 ms·
Being able to pardon for things from your administration during your own term seems to erode checks and balances. Some kind of limitation on that or maybe at l
by cma 6y ago
Being able to pardon for things from your administration during your own term seems to erode checks and balances. Some kind of limitation on that or maybe at least some kind of congressional approval could keep out the truely egregious stuff. Aside from that the self-pardon question should be ruled out entirely or all checks and balances are basically gone.
- indymike 6y agoThe presidential pardon has allowed our country to move on from problems that would lead to decades of prosecutions and counter-prosecutions as power changes party. Nixon and the civil war are both examples.
- cma 6y agoCongress already has tools for that (and the president has some sway through veto power): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amnesty_law#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amnesty_law#United_States There's no good reason to give all that power of unconditional pardons to one person.
- eevilspock 6y agoActually the "moving on" that Andrew Johnson enabled after the Civil War effectively terminated Reconstruction, launched nearly 100 years of Jim Crow, and gave permission for the South to regress (see "KKK"). In other words, Black people would beg to differ.
- anonu 6y agoI like to think that US democracy is self healing in the long run. Assume for a moment that pardons are, on balance, a good thing. This time around it was a little "too good". Net result: we rein in that power (hopefully). Dont get rid of it - keep it but instill rules and regulations like enforcing Justice Department oversight and review