Can congress pardon people?

Bush might pardon two border patrolmen who shot a man that was crossing the border back into Mexico. RW nutjobs are frothing at the mouth over these guys and calling them heroes. My understanding is they shot the man as he ran and then tried to cover it up.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070119/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_border_agents

Rep. Duncan Hunter (news, bio, voting record), R-Calif., introduced a bill Thursday calling for a congressional pardon of the agents. Congress has never issued pardons to anyone convicted of a crime, said Joe Kasper, Hunter's spokesman. But Kasper said Hunter believes there's enough ambiguity in the law on pardons to give it a try.

Now I'm even wondering why it is that a President can pardon people? It seems to me that maybe the Supreme Court would be in a position to make such recommendations, but a President? Considering the bias and potentially corrupt agendas of some of these Presidents, I'm not sure I'm in favor of them having that power...

Then again, I guess there ought to be some possible last option for a convicted person to appeal to--considering that our Justice system often dispenses something else... Hmmm.

power to grant pardons.

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A2Sec2.html

but not the reason. Why did they put that in the Constitution? Did they consider the way a President might misuse it? They must've felt it was important that a President have such power, but what were those reasons?

Apparently it hasn't been used in egregious enough a manner to stimulate an amendment to the Constitution--though, that being such a massive and momentus undertaking, it truly would have to be both egregious and represent a pattern--and since Presidents are formally impermenent, one might wonder if it'd be worth the effort. Of course, too, there is a terrific reluctance to changes to the Constitution (since it's done such a good job; it's almost like blasphemy to suggest changes). Perhaps it's also a matter that hasn't been much of a problem BECAUSE nearly all Presidents have mostly respected the priviledge--that is, it's not been a problem because most Presidents actually respected tradition (but we're faced with a President who is either intentionally unsware of the "traditional" restraints on the Presidency or who delights in flaunting any "imagined" constraints to his POWER).

Of course, since very little (relative to the massive amount deserved) in the way of criminal investigation against the GOP (and associates) has been allowed to date under the tri-lateral Republican majority government, there's been little need for this power-mad, irresponsible "President" to use those powers. I know nothing about his use of such powers--which either means he's failed to abuse them yet, or the M$M hasn't bothered to make any big deal of it.

Nevertheless, I'm confident that if all the underhanded goings-on under the Bush Administration were uncovered, he'd really need the powers--but he wouldn't be able to use them as he himself would have been impeached. Time will tell.

but I think there should be greater scrutiny when he does. Maybe they'll take greater care in the future.

by giving them infinite money to fly around the world and do whatever they want...

...generous with those pardons, indeed.