Pardons

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

And if the senate or house is currently under the control of a party that opposes those actions?


In general, I think pardons are an imperfect solution to a problem, for which all alternatives are even more imperfect.

(Not that I wouldn't be opposed to seeing them modify the rules...)

I don't think there's anything wrong with pardons, and most Presidents have used them responsibly. But should any power of the President be absolute? It wouldn't diminish the interests of justice to establish some provision for Congress to revoke any particular pardon.

[SuburbanTurkey]

I think suspending the pardon power during lame duck sessions could do a fair bit to curtail some of the most nakedly corrupt examples.

Make presidents use the power when there's still the possibility of electoral blowback. The lame duck is only from mid November until inauguration in January, and only occurs every 4 or 8 years. Not an unreasonable limitation to this power.

[dudalb]

Looks as if New York State will pick up the Bannon prosecution from the Feds.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I think suspending the pardon power during lame duck sessions could do a fair bit to curtail some of the most nakedly corrupt examples.

Make presidents use the power when there's still the possibility of electoral blowback. The lame duck is only from mid November until inauguration in January, and only occurs every 4 or 8 years. Not an unreasonable limitation to this power.

Not necessarily a bad idea, but once again, it is dealing with something which may not be an issue if the president were not corrupt.

I can see value in a good president wanting to use a lame-duck period to pardon people who morally should be pardoned, but where the pardon would be politically unpopular. (An example of this would be Obama commuting the sentence of Chelsea Manning.)

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Craig4

Quote:

So, in the case of something like the Vietnam War draft dodgers... you would want to see them live the rest of their lives with the threat of prosecution over their heads, just because "We can only pardon you if you are found guilty"?

It's the statute of limitations.

So fine... change that to "you would see them have the threat of prosecution for years, until the statute of limitations runs out". Perhaps better, but still a problem.

Quote:

You can also modify prosecution guidelines to not pursue such charges.

Ideally, the department of justice should function independently from the presidency.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

So fine... change that to "you would see them have the threat of prosecution for years, until the statute of limitations runs out". Perhaps better, but still a problem.

Ideally, the department of justice should function independently from the presidency.

Not necessarily. We don't want the President locking up his opponents. But if he says "Let's not enforce federal marijuana laws in states where it's legal," or "Let's not separate babies from mothers at the border even if the law says we can," or "Let's not send minor criminals to prison if compliance and justice can be fulfilled by alternative means," that's not an abuse of power. That's exercising discretion.

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I think suspending the pardon power during lame duck sessions could do a fair bit to curtail some of the most nakedly corrupt examples.

Make presidents use the power when there's still the possibility of electoral blowback. The lame duck is only from mid November until inauguration in January, and only occurs every 4 or 8 years. Not an unreasonable limitation to this power.

Wouldn't the entire 2nd term for a president be safe from "electoral blowback"?

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

Quote:

I think suspending the pardon power during lame duck sessions could do a fair bit to curtail some of the most nakedly corrupt examples.

Make presidents use the power when there's still the possibility of electoral blowback

Wouldn't the entire 2nd term for a president be safe from "electoral blowback"?

Not necessarily. Just because the president might not be re-elected does not mean there aren't potential ramifications from granting unpopular pardons.

The president would also want to make sure that his party did not lose congressional seats. And, they would also likely want to make sure their party maintained control of the white house (even if they personally were not running for re-election). Those could be in jeopardy if the president does something voters do not like, and they associate "the party" with "the president".

[The Don]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

Wouldn't the entire 2nd term for a president be safe from "electoral blowback"?

(S)he may have an effect on the Senate and House mid term elections.

[BobTheCoward]

What do modern democracies do? Does new zealand give the prime minister pardon power?

[Nessie]

Obama pardoned someone for the illegal sale and supply of alligator skins.