Presidential Pardons

[azcoyote]

I'd sure like to see our US congress enact legislation that disallows a president from pardoning members of his own administration. Right now, it's way too loose. What do you think?

[Scalliwag]

Well, it is part of the constitution. But the constitution has been amended since damn near before the ink dried. Hell, the right to own firearms in the second amendment
People that bitch about constitutional amendments seem to forget that part. If there was one that everybody should be behind it should be reigning that one in. With all the bitching by repubs and even investigations in Clinton's pardons I would think that they would be all over wanting to amend that.
My gut feeling is that you can forget that. They know damn well that the way things are going that republicans are really going to need that power before GW leaves office.

The best thing to do is let Bush do this and constantly remind voters how corrupt the republicans are. Keep embarrassing investigations going at full speed regardless of who he pardons.
The great thing about the dems not having investigational powers for so long is that the ammo depot has kept getting bigger and bigger. It is not like they have to investigate 10 year old land deals and Christmas card list as what happened with Clinton. The dems have great stuff to work with and have bad headline after bad headline against repubs coming for a very long time.
I think that from all the buzz after the Libby trial it is obvious that the dems will be sounding the fire alarms about Bush and the veto. He will still abuse it. And to me he is already destined to be the man that brought down the entire republican party.

[azcoyote]

Well, it is part of the constitution. But the constitution has been amended since damn near before the ink dried. Hell, the right to own firearms in the second amendment
People that bitch about constitutional amendments seem to forget that part. If there was one that everybody should be behind it should be reigning that one in. With all the bitching by repubs and even investigations in Clinton's pardons I would think that they would be all over wanting to amend that.
My gut feeling is that you can forget that. They know damn well that the way things are going that republicans are really going to need that power before GW leaves office.

The best thing to do is let Bush do this and constantly remind voters how corrupt the republicans are. Keep embarrassing investigations going at full speed regardless of who he pardons.
The great thing about the dems not having investigational powers for so long is that the ammo depot has kept getting bigger and bigger. It is not like they have to investigate 10 year old land deals and Christmas card list as what happened with Clinton. The dems have great stuff to work with and have bad headline after bad headline against repubs coming for a very long time.
I think that from all the buzz after the Libby trial it is obvious that the dems will be sounding the fire alarms about Bush and the veto. He will still abuse it. And to me he is already destined to be the man that brought down the entire republican party.

It just seems that as long as members of the executive branch, up to and including the including the VP know they have a get-out-of-jail-free card, they are essentially an unrestrained power. There is supposed to be a balance of power in our government; presidential pardons to white house staffers short-circuit that process and could be considered unconstitutional. I think that is the salient question. If the people demand it, the congress must oblige.

[Scalliwag]

That is completely true. After elder Bush lost to Clinton he pardoned all his Iran-Contra cronies to protect his own ass. Repubs thought that was okay. Dems did not investigate and have hearings because they accepted it was an unfortunate part of the constitution. But after the repubs launched investigations into the Rich pardon I am not so sure they will play by that game anymore. At least I hope not.
Even if they cannot overturn a pardon they can demonize the entire republican party by putting out details and findings as to what Bush was covering up.
Repubs made a fuss about W keys taken oof of keyboards when the Clinton administration pulled out and said they tore up a bunch of shit which turned out to be bullshit according to the GAO. It was part of a continuing smear.

Hopefully the dems will finally learn there lesson after the McCarthy era, Watergate, Iran Contra, and have no mercy.... after all that is the way the repubs have played for over 50 years now.

[AKammenzind]

In theory there should be no problem with things such as vetos and pardons because the majority should agree with the president's actions (they elected him, after all...) but nothing quite works as intended.

Personally I think it's a bit daft to make a big deal of executive power when corruption is inherent in every nook and cranny and the entire system could use a good dose of laxatives

I suppose we can only target one major flaw at a time though.

[Scalliwag]

Well as long as ambitious greedy people seek power we will have problems. Making them pay dearly when they commit criminal or treasonous acts would not stop problems, but I can guarantee you that if Duke Cunningham and Bob Ney faced execution for taking kickbacks for services during wartime that would be a good start.
There should at least be a clause in the pardon that it does not apply to forcing testimony against a president or former president. Make it to where the persons pardon may stand but they will go to jail if they either lie or refuse to testify in any investigations or trials that may ever happen.
Basically a pardon would get them off the hook unless they tried to protect the person that pardoned them. Edited March 15, 2007 by Scalliwag

[AngryApe]

please. democrats and republicans have been doing pardons and last day pardons for years. Clinton pardoned 140 people on his last day, pardoned convicted drug traffickers, and pardoned those who contributed to his campaign. politics will always be corrupt.

[Scalliwag]

Of course they have been doing pardons and last day pardons for years. Papa Bush pardoned people that were not even convicted but directly involved with Iran Contra. http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/06/29/revi...ran-pardon.html
See how many people that were not convicted ever pardoned by a president. There are differences. Clinton should not have pardoned Rich. Hell Libby was Rich's lawyer. He should have known after hiring Dick Morris that a republican can't be trusted

[Blue Midnight]

In theory there should be no problem with things such as vetos and pardons because the majority should agree with the president's actions (they elected him, after all...) but nothing quite works as intended.

Personally I think it's a bit daft to make a big deal of executive power when corruption is inherent in every nook and cranny and the entire system could use a good dose of laxatives

I suppose we can only target one major flaw at a time though.

Well, I suppose you are right. This of course ignores the fact that this administration is more corrupt (and oftentimes more blantantly evil) than any administration in our nation's history.

[Scalliwag]

Well, the Reagan and first Bush administrations has to be looked at very hard. After all they sold arms to a terrorist country while pretending to be a hardnose patriotic president that said Iran was evil and the enemy on camera and was a business partner in reality. I think Bush Sr. had more to do with it than Reagan. After all he had ran the CIA at one time. Bush Jr. is just more blatantly egotistical and far from the sharpest person to ever hold any office, let alone the presidency.

The first Bush administration had Lee Atwater who was an evil piece of shit just like Karl Rove. People like to chime in and say things like all administrations are like this. I think that is either out of ignorance or because it sounds good. At least in the last 50 years no other administration except for the Bush's, Nixon, and Reagan (Atwater worked for Reagan as well) ever had henchmen like these two guys.
If you ever get a chance, read "Bad Boy" about Atwater. He died about 20 years too late.

[Blue Midnight]

Well, the Reagan and first Bush administrations has to be looked at very hard. After all they sold arms to a terrorist country while pretending to be a hardnose patriotic president that said Iran was evil and the enemy on camera and was a business partner in reality. I think Bush Sr. had more to do with it than Reagan. After all he had ran the CIA at one time. Bush Jr. is just more blatantly egotistical and far from the sharpest person to ever hold any office, let alone the presidency.

The first Bush administration had Lee Atwater who was an evil piece of shit just like Karl Rove. People like to chime in and say things like all administrations are like this. I think that is either out of ignorance or because it sounds good. At least in the last 50 years no other administration except for the Bush's, Nixon, and Reagan (Atwater worked for Reagan as well) ever had henchmen like these two guys.
If you ever get a chance, read "Bad Boy" about Atwater. He died about 20 years too late.

Huh, ok I will check it out. Of course, running arms to terrorists, dictators, whatever, is small potatoes compared to what this administration is doing now. This entire Iraq disaster is all about the almighty money. Saying it is about oil is partially true, but it is really only half the picture. There are literally billions upon billions of dollars being funneled directly out of the treasury straight into the hands of Bush and Cheney's corporate friends. All the reconstruction projects, roads, school, army bases, weapons, etc. War is an extremely profitable business. Business is good. It is quite literally lives for dollars...what in the world could possibly be more evil? Spending the rest of their lives in jail would be a sentance too kind for these traitorous, murdering theives and scoundrels.

[Oracle]

I think things should stay the way they are with pardons. Otherwise, as a way to strike against an administration that the majority party in Congress didn't like, all they'd have to do is just start filing lawsuits and convince a few judges to rule their way. Pardons are one of the ways the Executive Branch remains independent from the other branches, and that really is the way it should be, even if it does get abused. Remember, Congress has the ability to remove the President if they can prove he's committed "high crimes and misdemeanors" and can get the votes.

[sicklecow]

Where is that power more likely to be abused: in the hands of 535, traditionally internally divided congressmen, or in the hands of a single, traditionally partisan soon-to-be-ex-president?

[Scalliwag]

I think things should stay the way they are with pardons. Otherwise, as a way to strike against an administration that the majority party in Congress didn't like, all they'd have to do is just start filing lawsuits and convince a few judges to rule their way. Pardons are one of the ways the Executive Branch remains independent from the other branches, and that really is the way it should be, even if it does get abused. Remember, Congress has the ability to remove the President if they can prove he's committed "high crimes and misdemeanors" and can get the votes.

The only thing that judges can rule is to let a trial go forward. If that happens then the case is tried by jury. So that argument at least the way I am reading it does not hold water. In most cases that apply here the allegations and evidence is presented to a grand jury by a prosecutor and the grand jury votes whether of not a trial is in order.
If a trial is in order like in the case of Libby and there is a conviction as in his case, it was by a jury.
That was the way our justice system was designed. The pardon was not intended to keep people that could implicate the person issung their pardon to keep them from being testified against.

[Oracle]

The only thing that judges can rule is to let a trial go forward. If that happens then the case is tried by jury. So that argument at least the way I am reading it does not hold water. In most cases that apply here the allegations and evidence is presented to a grand jury by a prosecutor and the grand jury votes whether of not a trial is in order.
If a trial is in order like in the case of Libby and there is a conviction as in his case, it was by a jury.
That was the way our justice system was designed. The pardon was not intended to keep people that could implicate the person issung their pardon to keep them from being testified against.

Exactly how do you know that this wasn't intended? The point of presidential pardons was to allow the president to keep the executive branch separate and independent from BOTH the judicial and the legislative branch, and not allow either too much power over the executive branch. It does a good job of doing that, and preventing witchhunts of current and former executive branch members while the President they worked under is still in power. Yes, it can be abused, but so can virtually any exercise of power. I'd rather err on the side of keeping the powers of our various branches intact as they were designed, than to eliminate an important power that keeps one branch from being overly influenced by the others.

[Scalliwag]

I'm sorry Oracle, but you find in Aticle II section 2 of the constitution where it talks about pardons that it discusses what you just said. Separation of powers and pardons could not have been any farther apart than what you just stated.
Here is a link to Article II http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/co....articleii.html

This is what is says:

Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

Offenses against the United States.... not the President of the United States, not the executive branch. You may approve of the way it has been used but I really can hardly wait to hear exactly where in the constitution you find anything that says the pardon was designed to protect the executive branch. Unless you think the executive branch is the United States? Edited March 22, 2007 by Scalliwag

[Oracle]

Any federal offense is an "offense against the United States", whether it's made by members of the Executive Branch or otherwise. This section isn't saying that he can't pardon members of the executive branch, it's saying that he can't pardon people convicted of crimes by a State, he can only pardon people convicted of crimes by the Federal government of the United States. The power to pardon people convicted of crimes by a State usually only rests with the Governor of that State.

The section itself shows how the other branches can prevent the President from granting a pardon, by impeaching the member of the Executive Branch they don't want the President to pardon. Otherwise, he can, and should, have the ability to pardon them.

[Scalliwag]

That is not correct either. George Bush Sr. pardoned people that were not even convicted. Casper Weinberger was only indicted. That is how loosely they have used the pardon. Look it up bro. Weinberger had not even stood trial.
It is the exact reason why amendments were made to the constitution. The whole pardon clause covers one third of a sentence.
It is not talking about impeaching the President. A president cannot pardon someone like a judge that has been impeached is what that means. Now if congress did not want a president to be able to pardon an impeached judge do you really think they intended the pardon to be used to pardon cronies? That makes absolutely no sense.

[EDIT] Just to add a little more to what you stated. You make it sound as if the congress could impeach someone quicker than a president can pardon them. To say "other branches can prevent the President from granting a pardon, by impeaching the member of the Executive Branch they don't want the President to pardon" makes me wonder if you are serious.
All a president has to do is state a person is pardoned where an impeachment requires a trial. A pardon requires zero warning. Read what you wrote and you tell me how impeachment is a tool for congress to use in the event a president is going to issue anyone a pardon? I really need to hear this. Edited March 23, 2007 by Scalliwag

[Oracle]

I'm going to leave it at "I disagree with you, and I don't think you fully understand how the separation of powers and checks and balances system works". Regardless, this system has worked pretty well for a long time, yes, there is inherent cronyism in it, but that's simply the way it is, there are a lot of problems with our system, but the fixes are usually worse than the problems themselves. This is one of those times where I think that is the case.

[Scalliwag]

If there were true separation of powers and the executive branch was supposed to be able to do anything they wanted to there would not be an impeachment process.
Like you "thought" a president could only pardon someone who was already convicted and I shot that down with a case that disproved that I find it ironic that you refer to your quote "I disagree with you, and I don't think you fully understand how the separation of powers and checks and balances system works".
You obviously did not understand the pardon system.

You can disagree and think I am wrong, but show me where Weinberger was tried and convicted and pardoned and I will be able to take you serious on the checks and balances. Opinions should always be based on fact and not assumption.

Like I said the pardon clause in the constitution needs to be amended for clarity.

What I hope is that some things stay under the radar until Bush is out of office and some of the people he does not think he has to pardon get indcted and convicted after he leaves. To me that would be the ultimate "in your face" move. If the next president wants to pardon them then they will have to pay the political price depending on what the people were indicted for.
I don't think traitors like Negroponte that was involved in selling arms to a terrorist country should be able to get appointed to a high place in power later by the son of the man that pardoned him. He was bad for the country then, he is bad for the country now, and prison would suit him much better.

[Oracle]

If there were true separation of powers and the executive branch was supposed to be able to do anything they wanted to there would not be an impeachment process.
Like you "thought" a president could only pardon someone who was already convicted and I shot that down with a case that disproved that I find it ironic that you refer to your quote "I disagree with you, and I don't think you fully understand how the separation of powers and checks and balances system works".
You obviously did not understand the pardon system.

You can disagree and think I am wrong, but show me where Weinberger was tried and convicted and pardoned and I will be able to take you serious on the checks and balances. Opinions should always be based on fact and not assumption.

Like I said the pardon clause in the constitution needs to be amended for clarity.

What I hope is that some things stay under the radar until Bush is out of office and some of the people he does not think he has to pardon get indcted and convicted after he leaves. To me that would be the ultimate "in your face" move. If the next president wants to pardon them then they will have to pay the political price depending on what the people were indicted for.
I don't think traitors like Negroponte that was involved in selling arms to a terrorist country should be able to get appointed to a high place in power later by the son of the man that pardoned him. He was bad for the country then, he is bad for the country now, and prison would suit him much better.

I never said someone couldn't be pardoned that wasn't convicted. I simply said that they could be impeached regardless - because the impeachment process simply removes them from office. And, again, your solutions are far worse than the problem. I don't think that Clinton and his cronies should have gotten away with selling our military technology to China, but he did anyway. Bush has gotten away with equally horrible crap. But taking away the pardon system simply because you don't like it? No, that's overkill.

[Scalliwag]

Well, I didn't say take away the pardon. I said to put limitations to whom the president can pardon. In other words not pardon anyone tied to any scandal they are involved in. There is a huge difference.
You said "it's saying that he can't pardon people convicted of crimes by a State, he can only pardon people convicted of crimes by the Federal government of the United States". That may very well be the intention of the constitution but a president can pardon anybody any time any reason regardless of what level they were convicted on for anything other than impeachment.

And bringing up Clinton allowing Hughes S&C http://www.pulitzer.org/year/1999/national...rks/061898.html to sell satellites to China has more to the story as well. Excerpt "President Clinton approved the Hughes project on June 23, 1996, after advisers assured him the communications satellite technology was readily available from European suppliers and would not contribute to Chinese military capabilities."

So Clinton was given "bad intelligence" and made a bad decision off of it you could say. Bad intelligence was a good enough excuse to put us into a 5 billion dollar war. So if GW can use that as an excuse I guess everybody else can?

[Oracle]

Well, I didn't say take away the pardon. I said to put limitations to whom the president can pardon. In other words not pardon anyone tied to any scandal they are involved in. There is a huge difference.
You said "it's saying that he can't pardon people convicted of crimes by a State, he can only pardon people convicted of crimes by the Federal government of the United States". That may very well be the intention of the constitution but a president can pardon anybody any time any reason regardless of what level they were convicted on for anything other than impeachment.

And bringing up Clinton allowing Hughes S&C http://www.pulitzer.org/year/1999/national...rks/061898.html to sell satellites to China has more to the story as well. Excerpt "President Clinton approved the Hughes project on June 23, 1996, after advisers assured him the communications satellite technology was readily available from European suppliers and would not contribute to Chinese military capabilities."

So Clinton was given "bad intelligence" and made a bad decision off of it you could say. Bad intelligence was a good enough excuse to put us into a 5 billion dollar war. So if GW can use that as an excuse I guess everybody else can?

Do you have anything showing that the President can pardon someone convicted of crimes by a State, or that a President has done so? I'd be interested to find out.

I think limiting the Presidential ability to pardon is interfering with the checks and balances set forth in the Constitution, as it's the Executive Branch's main check on the Judicial Branch, just like veto power is the Executive Branch's main check on the Legislative Branch. The whole point is so that the President can pardon anyone tied to his or her administration, it maintains the Executive's ability to act freely from the other branches.

And, I never defended Bush or Clinton's actions, I think that they are both reprehensible. I also think that focusing on something like Presidential pardons is spinning your wheels - the only way real change is going to occur in this country is if our two-party system is destroyed, because it's the real source of the corruption. And that can be done without any changes to the Constitution.

[Scalliwag]

Well that again is part of the problem with no more being written into the constitution than that short little piece that says "he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment" and if that covers pardoning someone that has not even been convicted another president can take it however he wants to.
Someone would have to be pardoned and then someone would have to take the case all the way to the supreme court to get a decision. The court would have to find it either constitutional or unconstitutional.
Bush could give anybody a pardon for anything other than impeachment and that pardon would be honored until it made it's way through the court system.

I don't agree with it but it has been used very loosely. But the presidential pardon was not designed to protect presidential cronies. Governors do not have power over federal to grant pardons. So the power was given to the President so he had power to do so. Even some states do not give governors pardon powers.

[Oracle]

Well that again is part of the problem with no more being written into the constitution than that short little piece that says "he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment" and if that covers pardoning someone that has not even been convicted another president can take it however he wants to.
Someone would have to be pardoned and then someone would have to take the case all the way to the supreme court to get a decision. The court would have to find it either constitutional or unconstitutional.
Bush could give anybody a pardon for anything other than impeachment and that pardon would be honored until it made it's way through the court system.

I don't agree with it but it has been used very loosely. But the presidential pardon was not designed to protect presidential cronies. Governors do not have power over federal to grant pardons. So the power was given to the President so he had power to do so. Even some states do not give governors pardon powers.

Thought I'd include this for those who want to do more research on the history and development of presidential pardons:

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardons2.htm