That was the whole principle behind that whole Dirty Bomber held as enemy combatant thing in the Bush II administration.

It's not in the Constitution, ergo it's tradition at best, habit at worst.

Near as I can tell the only actual Supreme Court ruling on the topic was back in 1883 when it said that a pardon had to be accepted by the pardonee (pardoned? whatever) and that you couldn't, essentially, pardon someone against their will.

Other than that that one paragraph in the Constitution is the only thing that legally binding to Trump in regards to pardons.

That makes sense, in the same way that "Walking uphill should be just as easy as walking downhill" makes sense.

Just because it's possible to build a path in the opposite direction doesn't mean you have to.

The law is entirely a human construct, and is intended to do nothing more or less than enact human will, as expressed by whatever "government" the local humans have decided to adopt. There are no "shoulds" in the law*. "Because we want it that way, and not the other way" is all the justification we, as humans, need to make the law any way we want it to be.

I've seen this a lot in patent law. There's a certain subset of people in the intellectual property community who have it in their heads that any aspect of IP law that isn't "logically supportable" or that contrasts with anything of "natural law" should automatically be thrown out. They don't get that the law is arbitrary, that we can say, "Everything in science and engineering is patentable, except X, Y and Z", and have that just be the Law, even if there's no objective reason for excluding X, Y and Z other than "We want to."



*There's a principle that "the law cannot compel an impossibility", but even that is mostly just a matter of practicality. While it might be stupid and unfair for me to pass a law requiring you to fall up instead of down, if I could get the population at large to support punishing you for falling down, well, that's the law, sorry.

Everybody has the ability to provide a quid pro quo. :boggled:

A quick google search tells us this: A presidential pardon restores various rights lost as a result of the pardoned offense and may lessen to some extent the stigma arising from a conviction, but does not erase or expunge the record of the conviction itself.
(my bold)

Since the President cannot erase or expunge a conviction your argument has no merit.

Errrrm... no.

You see, people like Trump could claim that to be the case every time.

And in what scenario would a "judiciary" be putting pressure on the Administration? It seems like the other way around is much more likely (as evidenced by recent history).

Again, a President could presently pardon someone who has just murdered his political opponent. And we're not very far away from seeing stuff like that happening. So the pardon power needs to go. Fast.

Oh, a Trumper in our midst!

Can't see anyone else rallying to your call.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

I see some merit in this PhantomWolf.

Thanks for the YouTube link. Sort of shows the rules and guideline for pardons to be something of a dog's breakfast.

I can see some merit in pardons being granted en masse where the law broken was absurd and possibly revoked.

I remember hearing something that the pardon is at the federal level only. Some of the current cases against Trump (tax cases?) are state level.

Yet another example of Trump's remarkable lack of knowledge of the facts.

Yes, that is true.

The DA of Manhattan is currently investigating the Trump organization over possible Tax and Bank fraud. And Trump could (in theory) be on the hook for violating state election laws over his call to Georgia election officials (although given the fact that Georgia is still republican-controlled at the state level, I doubt they would prosecute Trump).

Trump would be unable to pardon his way out of these.

There is a whole thread dedicated to Trump's crimes.
See: ISF

I think that this is kind of a silly question to ask. As one other poster almost put it, it's like suggesting that it should be as easy for water to run uphill as downhill.

In the former case, the Presidential Pardon is putting a cap on the Governmental powers of the Judiciary. It is a limiting of Government Power because it can remove the Government's power over a person.

In the Later case, you would be extending the President's power and breaching a person's Constitutional and pretty much Human Rights, in that you are taking away their rights to due process, something instilled in Western Societies since the Magna Carta. You would be turning the President into a King, literally.

And who picks the members of the commission? If the prime minister and his party are the ones that select who to add to the commission, they can stack it with partisan hacks.

Fine, replace 'republican' with whatever far-right fringe party you might have there.

Although we are talking about the American system, so if you think the U.S. should adopt your system, you would need to examine how it would function with the same sort of individuals currently in power there.
And who decides illegality? Again, if this were the system adopted in the U.S., Barr could have rejected people for no good reason (other than they weren't right-wing enough), and when someone said "that's illegal", well, he's head of the DoJ. He sort of has significant authority there.
The issue is not "how well does a system function when everyone is behaving", the issue is "how robust is the system when you have people trying to break it".

You may not have seen any problems with the "commission picked/AG confirmed" process. But I suspect your politicians are not as corrupt as the republicans in the U.S.

Again, I want to stress that your method of selecting judges is not a bad one. It seems fair and looks like it would get good results. I just don't believe ANY system would be safe from being corrupted, if they had someone like Moscow Mitch or Bill Barr involved.

The problem with that is the concept in the legal systems of democratic countries to err on the side of caution in assuming people are innocent and that people should not be jailed unless people are relatively sure of their guilt.

Thus, the ability of a president to free someone is more in line with that element of the justice system than giving the ability of the president to jail someone.

The State Services Commission does. Basically, if a member of the Committee is leaving then the Committee will select a new non-partisan member. While I can't say for sure, it would not surprise me that the outgoing member often has a say in their replacement.

Our AG has limited Authority. The legality of reasons to reject a nominee is bound by the Bill of Rights, so there is no real argument to be made there if the rejection violates the BoRs. Technically the Human Rights Commissioner could lay a complaint against the AG, or the Employment Courts could be brought in to deal with any alleged illegalities. If it was considered a bad enough breach then there are certainly Parliamentary Enquires and censures as well as the Police if there is deemed to be criminality. The AG is not the head of the Police or any investigative bodies here.

One of the strengths of our system is that we have spent a lot of time and effort divorcing the Government benches and the State Sector. Civil Servants work for the Crown, not the Government. The Government Ministers (Basically your Government Secretaries) are not the heads of the Departments, but rather they are there to act as intermediates between the Department and Government, to help learn what the Department has need of, to formula policies to help them achieve their goals and to hold them to account for their ability to carry out the policies of the Government. The Ministers also tend to be held to account when a department fails in its goals.

There is a separation between the politician and the department itself. The Ministers guide and give policies, but it up to the head of the department, who is appointed by State Services, to implement those instructions and policies.

Essentially in our system, the likes of a Moscow Mitch of a Bill Barr would be unable to do a lot of damage because of the way the systems are set up to be reasonably independent of the Government Ministers themselves.

This is why we have cabinet shuffles so often. The ministers themselves are kind of interchangeable. Imagine trying to do that in the US where you shuffled the jobs of all the Cabinet Secretaries every 6-12 months depending on how well they were doing. (Another difference is that all our ministers are elected members of the Parliament, usually from the Government and allied benches, rather than being purely appointed by the Executive.)

Trump seems to pardon rich, important people who have aided him in the past by taking the fall for him.

The rioters were poor unimportant plebs who failed to get Trump what he wanted. Not only that, I'm guessing all his thoughts are now on how to save his own hide, there are plenty more suckers where they came from.
Somehow I doubt he's even considering it.

That would place the President above the law. Maybe governors too. That's a perversion of the constitution.

No because the Constitution was written under the (arguably naive) assumption that the voters would serve as an unspoken, unwritten final check and balance, never electing anyone that was this bad in this way.

The Constitution made allowances for bad Presidents, incompetent Presidents, even evil ones but never accounted for a troll with no fear of reprisals.

The framers assumed that even the "bad" parts of our government would be operating as honest agents with logical agendas.

This is not the case. Trump is not Nixon. Hell he's not even Jefferson Davis. He has no goal beyond "make it all worse."

I didn't mean the pardoned could pay the president back for being pardoned. I meant the pardon was payback for commiting a crime to benefit the president.
The President can't, for an extreme example, hire a hitman to kill his political opponent, the pardon him after conviction. He shouldn't be allowed to use pardons as a form of payment for services rendered.

The point is that, as written, pardon power allows for these types of perversions. That needs to change.

That's meaningless. The President is always going to have some level of power he could misuse.

Its up to us to elect President who just won't do that, not change the structure of the government so they can't.

But virtually any power, no matter how well-written, is subject to abuse. In the end, all laws and powers come down to people. A person with good intent won't abuse even a poorly-worded law; a person with bad intent will find a way to abuse even a well-written law. And if everyone around that bad person ignores the abuse, or worse yet, actively supports the abuse, then the letter of the law matter not a whit.

Take a look at Dungeons and Dragons. They've spent decades refining their rule books, trying to make the game as perfect as possible, but you still have Rules Lawyers finding loopholes to exploit.

Some level. The implications of the pardon power goes way beyond "some".

It's my opinion the power to pardon, as it currently stands, is beyond the pale in terms of providing opportunities for abuse. It might be permissible for a President to blanket pardon him/herself. We're talking about an elected official possibly being exempt from the rule of law, for any crime commited in office.

It also doesn't specifically spell it out in the Constitution that the President can't win re-election by carving off his opponents face and wearing it as a mask.

Even in something as deep, esoteric, and overly literal as Constitutional Law we reserve the right to go "No you don't get to do that. No it's not written down anywhere we thought it was obvious" and "No you can't pardon yourself" should be on the list.

But this all goes back to what we as a society will tolerate.

Okay, so we rewrite it to explicitly ban a self-pardon.

So, Trump resigns as President, Pence pardons him, then appoints Trump as his new Vice President, and resigns, so that Trump is now President again.

Think this can't happen? Putin could make it happen in Russia. Getting his toadies to help him end-run the rules in this sort of manner is what Putin does, power is just a shell game to him. Trump's toadies aren't quite that obedient, but it wouldn't take much to get them there. Maybe another riot or two? We already have some of the members of Congress claiming they voted to reject the electoral college votes because they feared for their families' safety. It's not that much more of a step to these cowards rubber-stamping anything Trump wants to do.

I'm aware the letter of the law can't account for everything. But, imo, the sweeping power of the presidential pardon makes perverting the law too easy. Nixon's pardon was criminally obscene, and that's tame compared to what this administration has in mind.

I think Barack Obama said what I think represents the good side of the power of the pardon:

"The power to grant pardons and clemency is one of the most profound authorities granted to the President of the United States. It embodies the basic belief in our democracy that people deserve a second chance after having made a mistake in their lives that led to a conviction under our laws."

He said this after commuting the sentences of a bunch of people for non-violent drug related crimes.

Bill Clinton (and sure, Donald Trump) is an example of the pardon being used badly. He pardoned alot of his friends and other controversial pardons.

With great power comes great responsibility, and all that . . . unfortunately, our Presidents are not written by Stan Lee.

Meh, the pardon power really isn't that sweeping. Mostly its been used sparingly and judiciously and most presidents have had a few late term controversy.

That being said, it should be limited somewhat. At the very least and amendment should clarify that the president can't pardon himself. I don't fault the framers for not thinking that that particular clarification would be needed, nobody else did prior to about 3 years ago.

As I said elsewhere, I think we should also include a congressional ability to overturn a pardon or maybe require congressional approval? Kind of like appointments. Since we're add it, ban pardons between November and February, just to make sure the president and his party can be held accountable for the really bad ones.

Sounds pretty good. But on balance, I'd add that a pardonning President should have at a minimum a law degree and write a formal opinion on the legal standing for the pardon.

Can you imagine some silver-spoon real estate developer/reality tv guy overturning a legal procedure on "I feel like it" grounds?

I would absolutely object to the requirement that the president have a law degree. We have to many lawyers running things already. Also, I don't really see the need for a legal reasoning behind a pardon but if you want to require a lawyer draft the document, whatever.

Could you imagine a lawyer righting writing up some pardon on the basis of, he's a rich friend of mine?

//Spitballing suggestion for discussion//

A modified pardon power.

The President can not overturn a conviction, but he would have the right to essentially order a retrial, bypassing all "Double Jeopardy" limitations and could do things like order changes to venue of the trial, things like that. But whatever he orders would still have to be a fair and impartial trial under all the framework already established. He could go "I think the Legal System has made a mistake" but in the end it would still be the Legal System's job to make the final call even the second time.

Basically what if the President could order a specific legal verdict null and void, but not have the power to by fiat make a new only, only the power to restart the process? (And I'm talking once, not over and over until he gets the results he wants.)

ETA: Maybe retain retain the ability to do full on pardons, posthumously, for their symbolism.

You appear to have failed to notice to whom you were replying.

It is sweeping, as it stands now. The nation's been lucky at the discretion applied up till now. The President should not be able to pardon himself, his VP, his administrative appointments (Cabinet, etc) or their immediate families. The other two branches of government should have a mechanism to challenge pardons if the appearance of collusion is evident (perhaps to the satisfaction of the SC or some other referee.) It should be made as difficult as reasonably possible for the executive to use the pardon as a form of currency, or to satisfy craven self interest. It should be made as difficult as reasonably possible to use the pardon as a political weapon.

Seriously? You think a conviction should be randomly overturned without legal reasoning?

I don't think it should be random but I don't see much need for a legal reasoning. Things like, "This old lady has spent enough time in Jail" or "This guy has clearly changed" would generally be fine by me, assuming they're true.

Yeah, I'm going to say that this can't happen, currently. It might be able to happen in different circumstances but to appoint a new VP after the position is vacated requires a majority vote in both Houses of Congress. Since the Democrats control the House it would be impossible to get a majority vote in the House to appoint Trump as VP.

"Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress."

Twenty-fifth Amendment: Section 2

If the crimes lead to impeachment then they can't.


There is, it's called the SCOTUS. It's just hasn't been used yet to challenge pardons because u until now they have generally been pretty reasonable.

Technically there is a provision for this in the Constitution. Using a Pardon as payment for a service is essentially Bribery. This is specifically mentioned as a reason for Impeachment.