4 ms·

While I would tend to agree with the first one, and preventing someone from pardoning himself or herself, the rest is a bit much. But it's a moot point anyway.

While I would tend to agree with the first one, and preventing someone from pardoning himself or herself, the rest is a bit much. But it's a moot point anyway. At this point amending the constitution is virtually impossible.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> the rest is a bit much The Cabinet or the lame-duck pardons? Cabinet members are close to the President and in commanding positions of authority; if they’re scared of a law they should work to change it. Lame ducks, on the other hand, aren’t subject to the single veneer of a check on Presidential pardons: popular outrage. Limiting it in that span, when a President is unaccountable, and where we have ample history of silliness, seems warranted. Note that I’m not proposing restricting commutations in any of those cases. (I suppose we should add a clause prohibiting the President from preëmptive commutations, too.) > amending the constitution is virtually impossible Not true. We’re probably closer to the end of our Constitutional stasis than at any time in our lives. Hell, you might be able to ram something like this through today if you added a clause that nullifies past pardons per those standards.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- w0de0 2y ago
  > Constitutional stasis Tickles me to see “stasis” so used - not incorrectly, ofc, but nonetheless as a perfect contranym of the original Greek. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasis_(ancient_Greece) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasis_(ancient_Greece)]
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    I'd argue it's quite similar. Since Nixon, we've been in a hyperpartisan divide that doesn't permit Constitutional flexibility.
- class700 2y ago
  I'm curious why you think we're close to an amendment being passable? 2/3rds Senate and 3/4th of the states does feel impossible for anything with even a slightly partisan angle to it?
quasarj 2y ago
What? Trump just did it with an executive order!

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> the rest is a bit much The Cabinet or the lame-duck pardons? Cabinet members are close to the President and in commanding positions of authority; if they’re scared of a law they should work to change it. Lame ducks, on the other hand, aren’t subject to the single veneer of a check on Presidential pardons: popular outrage. Limiting it in that span, when a President is unaccountable, and where we have ample history of silliness, seems warranted. Note that I’m not proposing restricting commutations in any of those cases. (I suppose we should add a clause prohibiting the President from preëmptive commutations, too.) > amending the constitution is virtually impossible Not true. We’re probably closer to the end of our Constitutional stasis than at any time in our lives. Hell, you might be able to ram something like this through today if you added a clause that nullifies past pardons per those standards.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
w0de0 2y ago
> Constitutional stasis Tickles me to see “stasis” so used - not incorrectly, ofc, but nonetheless as a perfect contranym of the original Greek. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasis_(ancient_Greece) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasis_(ancient_Greece)]
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  I'd argue it's quite similar. Since Nixon, we've been in a hyperpartisan divide that doesn't permit Constitutional flexibility.
class700 2y ago
I'm curious why you think we're close to an amendment being passable? 2/3rds Senate and 3/4th of the states does feel impossible for anything with even a slightly partisan angle to it?

quasarj 2y ago

What? Trump just did it with an executive order!