General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe President Actually Has Enormous Power To Pardon Basically Whomever He Wants
The contours and confines of that power, however, are limited because only 43 people have ever exercised the federal pardon power. As with many aspects of presidential power, there have been limited challenges in court to the pardon power as a result — and scattered case law interpreting exactly what the American president’s pardon power means (and doesn’t mean).
The Supreme Court has, over time, heard several cases detailing the limits of the power. But not that many cases reach the Supreme Court, and that consideration has been limited to the specific cases that have reached it. The courts have made clear over time that presidents can pardon people before they’ve even been convicted of any crime; that any federal offense can be pardoned; and that presidents are given broad leeway in the type of relief they can grant — from temporary reprieves to full pardons to commutations to broad-based grants of amnesty.
The Supreme Court, however, has never definitively answered some key questions about the extent of the pardon power.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/the-president-actually-has-enormous-power-to-pardon?utm_term=.kjoKx6173#.ioAbA930l
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
California_Republic
(1,826 posts)? Big mess
poboy2
(2,078 posts)the citizens would not have a malignant narcissist/lunatic as president.
They assumed if a foreign government attacked our electoral process, the legislative branch would respond.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)BTW, if he is pardoning people to impede a lawful investigation that is grounds for impeachment. Of course impeachment is as much a political as legal act.
former9thward
(32,009 posts)There are many founding documents explaining the reasons for the pardon power. I recommend Federalist #74 authored by Alexander Hamilton. Alexander Hamilton said "pardoning" was necessary to mitigate the harsh justice of the criminal code.
Pardons have also been used for the broader public-policy purpose of ensuring peace and tranquility in the case of uprisings and to bring peace after internal conflicts. As Hamilton argued in The Federalist No. 74, "in seasons of insurrection or rebellion there are often critical moments when a well-timed offer of pardon to the insurgents or rebels may restore the tranquility of the commonwealth; and which, if suffered to pass unimproved, it may never be possible afterwards to recall." Presidents have sought to use the pardon power to overcome or mitigate the effects of major crises that afflicted the polity. President George Washington granted an amnesty to those who participated in the Whiskey Rebellion; Presidents Lincoln and Andrew Johnson issued amnesties to those involved with the Confederates during the Civil War; and Presidents Ford and Carter granted amnesties to Vietnam-era draft evaders.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)DumpDrumpf
(85 posts)We might need to revisit giving this much power to one person...maybe make the presidency ceremonial, & switch to a parliamentary system...when the PM acts nutty, boom, no confidence vote, new elections, buh bye.
chillfactor
(7,576 posts)is one reason Mueller is steering things to state courts.....the asshat can pardon at the federal level but not the state level. Both Manaford and Cohen have cases before state courts.
former9thward
(32,009 posts)Le Gaucher
(1,547 posts)OliverQ
(3,363 posts)
bluestarone
(16,941 posts)Far enough ahead to see how crazy this world could get. They are entitled to make some mistakes! We do need to make changes when it's the right time!! They did make some very good laws considering there problems at the time tho!
kentuck
(111,097 posts)Right?
democratisphere
(17,235 posts)Too much authority with little or no accountability. It is so wrong with checks and balances becoming a fraud.
Ferrets are Cool
(21,106 posts)willing to educate themselves enough to vote in their own best interests.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)of the power of the pardon. It's my guess that's why he's been working with Eric Schneiderman from the beginning. The mantra is follow the money and donnies money is in NY. I think if Donnie pardons Manafort or anyone else, the NY AG will slap money laundering and bank fraud and whatever else he find or already has found in a heartbeat. Then he's at the mercy of Gov Cuomo who's I don't think will be particularly merciful.
But the larger point is something to consider. No one American should have that kind of pardon power.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)There are remedies for flagrant abuses.
dpibel
(2,831 posts)What are these remedies of which you speak?
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Remedy was not a solid word choice. Though elections would be one.
tableturner
(1,682 posts)For example, if a president were to sell a pardon for a sum of money, that would be a crime. The crime would not be pardoning. The crime would be bribery that was effectuated via the use of the pardon, since it would have been done with the corrupt intention of selling the pardon for money. The pardon would be constitutionally protected, so it would not be a crime per se, while the solicitation and acceptance of the bribe would be the crime.
Similarly, a president could be a part of a plot to murder a political opponent, and the signal to the person to go ahead and commit the murder could be the pardoning of a particular individual (the pardoned individual need not be related to any other aspect of the scenario). In that case, the crime would not be the act of pardoning, but instead, the crimes would be murder and conspiracy to commit murder via the use of a pardon that was issued as a result of the corrupt intention to commit murder.
So a president issuing pardons as an effort to silence witnesses against him would be guilty of obstruction of justice, NOT pardoning. The act of the pardon itself would be legal, but the plot and motive behind it, i.e., the corrupt intention of stopping the investigation, would be the crime of obstruction.
Mr. Ected
(9,670 posts)That a co-conspirator in a capital crime cannot maintain unfettered, unmitigated pardon rights.
It is antithetical to an adherence to the rule of law to deem that a President is not only above the law, but capable of contorting criminal justice in its application to his co-conspirators.
No way the Founding Fathers would sign off on that. No way.
dpibel
(2,831 posts)Do you think it's a good thing? A bad thing?
What is the purpose of this post? Just to demonstrate that it's okey-dokey for Trump to pardon Scooter?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)The idea of Trump having this degree of pardon power does not thrill me, but I understand the underpinning of the concept itself.
The whole pardoning thing always seems a little wrong on initial reflection.
