4 ms·

I fully believe there's a stack of pardons in Trump's drawer for everyone involved in this debacle. I can't imagine breaking so many laws all over the governmen

I fully believe there's a stack of pardons in Trump's drawer for everyone involved in this debacle. I can't imagine breaking so many laws all over the government if you thought you'd ever have to face consequences. The alternative to pardons in preventing the next congress & administration from cleaning this up is too dire to really contemplate.

dboreham 2y ago
Time to remove the pardon powder. Has it achieved anything productive in the last 100 years?
- sterlind 2y ago
  it's written into the Constitution very explicitly. and it's a really bad time to hold a Constitutional Convention.
  - derektank 2y ago
    I'm not actually convinced that now would be a terrible time to hold a constitutional convention. Yes, it would be messy, but the nature of the ratification requirements (3/4 of all states) means that nothing could make it through without essentially unanimous consent of the country as a whole.
    - cgriswald 2y ago
      While we are at it we can add ranked voting and a vote of no confidence (maybe initiated by congress and voted on by the states or people).
- nativeit 2y ago
  I think it's been used properly in a lot of instances, especially when you consider that federal law can quickly become out-of-step with modern sensibilities, so being able to relieve those harmed by laws flawed under contemporary standards is important. There's probably a better way of handling that, but it's one instance where the power of presidential and governors' pardons have been applied appropriately.
  - BrenBarn 2y ago
    > I think it's been used properly in a lot of instances, especially when you consider that federal law can quickly become out-of-step with modern sensibilities, so being able to relieve those harmed by laws flawed under contemporary standards is important. No, that is exactly what we don't need. When law becomes out of step with modern sensibilities, the law needs to be changed. Precisely the problem we currently have is that we have become too accustomed to dealing with a sort of "shadow law" system where the way things actually work is not the way they're supposed to work according to the law. That is a recipe for confusion, bias, favoritism, and inequity. What we need is a system of laws that actually lets the people fix things when they are broken instead of patching around them. (This is, in my view, a byproduct of other aspects of our legal system, in particular the grossly over-restrictive process for amending the constitution.)
    - nativeit 2y ago
      That's not really what I meant. Just because a law is repealed or changed, doesn't mean the people who were sentenced to prison because of its original form will receive revised sentences.
      - BrenBarn 2y ago
        You can revise their sentences with law as well.
  - tcmart14 2y ago
    At the very least, it seems obvious there should be an asterick on the pardon power of, "you can't use it to pardon your employees/staff." Or pardon people for things they did under your direction/purview.
  - Braxton1980 2y ago
    Are you referring to cases where the person already served their time or are long dead? Like a pardon for someone convicted of being gay in the early 20th century? These are symbolic and provide no practical relief. Losing this to stop all pardons would be worth it to me
- Reason077 2y ago
  It's a bizarre and archaic power, which has been abused by presidents from both parties.
  - xorcist 2y ago
    It's also clearly incompatible with most (all?) modern definitions of democracy.
- woodruffw 2y ago
  Truman and Carter used it well[1][2]. [1]: https://www.newspapers.com/article/news-and-record-truman-extends-amnesty-t/158796306/ https://www.newspapers.com/article/news-and-record-truman-ex... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation_4483 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation_4483
- romellem 2y ago
  To remove the presidential pardon power, you'd need to [amend the Constitution][1]. Getting [two thirds of both Houses of Congress][2] to pass any amendment in the foreseeable future seems highly unlikely if not downright inconceivable. [1]: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C1-3-1/ALDE_00013316/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C1-3... [2]: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artV-1/ALDE_00000507/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artV-1/ALDE_0...
  - Braxton1980 2y ago
    Why? It doesn't affect the power of congress so why would they care?
satanfirst 2y ago
They are betting the system won't go after them later which is a very bad bet if they eventually give back the executive branch and an even worse bet if the power they support never gives it back. About as brilliant as being in a photo with Stalin.
- geraldwhen 2y ago
  Trump can wait until the last day in office then issue pardons for any possible crimes, right? Biden did something similar I believe
  - magicalist 2y ago
    > Trump can wait until the last day in office then issue pardons for any possible crimes, right? Is your mental model of the pardon process actually confused? Yes, the president can unilaterally issue pardons, and Donald Trump is president until the end of his term, so he can issue pardons on his last day in office.
    - pests 2y ago
      Is the hostility really required? The comment was about last-day pardons, not pardons in general. Its a topic many presidents have gotten flak or attention for.
      - magicalist 2y ago
        What hostility? I was asking if they were really confused or if they were asking rhetorically. If they were actually confused, the answer is yes. edit: oh, I guess "and Donald Trump is president until the end of his term" could come off as patronizing. I meant it just as a statement in a chain of reasoning
        satanfirst 2y ago
        Recent untested precedent exists of blanket pardons needed for unqualified crimes and they are so far likely to be challenged on a different technicality (first?).. Asking what people think is not confused unless you are being uncharitable or know a lot of actual precedents that we all should know from another era.

dboreham 2y ago

Time to remove the pardon powder. Has it achieved anything productive in the last 100 years?

sterlind 2y ago
it's written into the Constitution very explicitly. and it's a really bad time to hold a Constitutional Convention.
- derektank 2y ago
  I'm not actually convinced that now would be a terrible time to hold a constitutional convention. Yes, it would be messy, but the nature of the ratification requirements (3/4 of all states) means that nothing could make it through without essentially unanimous consent of the country as a whole.
  - cgriswald 2y ago
    While we are at it we can add ranked voting and a vote of no confidence (maybe initiated by congress and voted on by the states or people).
nativeit 2y ago
I think it's been used properly in a lot of instances, especially when you consider that federal law can quickly become out-of-step with modern sensibilities, so being able to relieve those harmed by laws flawed under contemporary standards is important. There's probably a better way of handling that, but it's one instance where the power of presidential and governors' pardons have been applied appropriately.
- BrenBarn 2y ago
  > I think it's been used properly in a lot of instances, especially when you consider that federal law can quickly become out-of-step with modern sensibilities, so being able to relieve those harmed by laws flawed under contemporary standards is important. No, that is exactly what we don't need. When law becomes out of step with modern sensibilities, the law needs to be changed. Precisely the problem we currently have is that we have become too accustomed to dealing with a sort of "shadow law" system where the way things actually work is not the way they're supposed to work according to the law. That is a recipe for confusion, bias, favoritism, and inequity. What we need is a system of laws that actually lets the people fix things when they are broken instead of patching around them. (This is, in my view, a byproduct of other aspects of our legal system, in particular the grossly over-restrictive process for amending the constitution.)
  - nativeit 2y ago
    That's not really what I meant. Just because a law is repealed or changed, doesn't mean the people who were sentenced to prison because of its original form will receive revised sentences.
    - BrenBarn 2y ago
      You can revise their sentences with law as well.
- tcmart14 2y ago
  At the very least, it seems obvious there should be an asterick on the pardon power of, "you can't use it to pardon your employees/staff." Or pardon people for things they did under your direction/purview.
- Braxton1980 2y ago
  Are you referring to cases where the person already served their time or are long dead? Like a pardon for someone convicted of being gay in the early 20th century? These are symbolic and provide no practical relief. Losing this to stop all pardons would be worth it to me
Reason077 2y ago
It's a bizarre and archaic power, which has been abused by presidents from both parties.
- xorcist 2y ago
  It's also clearly incompatible with most (all?) modern definitions of democracy.
woodruffw 2y ago
Truman and Carter used it well[1][2]. [1]: https://www.newspapers.com/article/news-and-record-truman-extends-amnesty-t/158796306/ https://www.newspapers.com/article/news-and-record-truman-ex... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation_4483 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation_4483
romellem 2y ago
To remove the presidential pardon power, you'd need to [amend the Constitution][1]. Getting [two thirds of both Houses of Congress][2] to pass any amendment in the foreseeable future seems highly unlikely if not downright inconceivable. [1]: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C1-3-1/ALDE_00013316/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C1-3... [2]: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artV-1/ALDE_00000507/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artV-1/ALDE_0...
- Braxton1980 2y ago
  Why? It doesn't affect the power of congress so why would they care?

satanfirst 2y ago

They are betting the system won't go after them later which is a very bad bet if they eventually give back the executive branch and an even worse bet if the power they support never gives it back. About as brilliant as being in a photo with Stalin.

geraldwhen 2y ago
Trump can wait until the last day in office then issue pardons for any possible crimes, right? Biden did something similar I believe
- magicalist 2y ago
  > Trump can wait until the last day in office then issue pardons for any possible crimes, right? Is your mental model of the pardon process actually confused? Yes, the president can unilaterally issue pardons, and Donald Trump is president until the end of his term, so he can issue pardons on his last day in office.
  - pests 2y ago
    Is the hostility really required? The comment was about last-day pardons, not pardons in general. Its a topic many presidents have gotten flak or attention for.
    - magicalist 2y ago
      What hostility? I was asking if they were really confused or if they were asking rhetorically. If they were actually confused, the answer is yes. edit: oh, I guess "and Donald Trump is president until the end of his term" could come off as patronizing. I meant it just as a statement in a chain of reasoning
      - satanfirst 2y ago
        Recent untested precedent exists of blanket pardons needed for unqualified crimes and they are so far likely to be challenged on a different technicality (first?).. Asking what people think is not confused unless you are being uncharitable or know a lot of actual precedents that we all should know from another era.