berg80
Diamond Member
- Oct 28, 2017
- 20,702
- 17,316
- 2,320
Trump once said, “Then, I have an Article II, where I have to the right to do whatever I want as president.” It would appear no one in his admin or inner circle dared to inform him of his colossal misunderstanding of Article II powers. But he's finding out now.
But this thread isn't about the sordid MaL affair. It's about whether we all can agree the absolute power to pardon people possessed by the POTUS needs to be reformed?
One of the features of Trump's presidency was the extent to which he exposed weaknesses in the laws, rules, and protocols governing a prez's behavior. Weaknesses that existed because no one ever contemplated that a prez would so extensively exploit them. This article explores some of the areas in need of reform and suggests remedies to address them.
www.lawfareblog.com
One of them being.............-Pardon reform. There can be little doubt of two things. First, as currently constructed, the president’s pardon power is nearly absolute. Second, President Trump’s use of the pardon power has transgressed the Founders’ expectations. Indeed, the idea that a president might pardon his own criminal confederates (as is arguably the case with Roger Stone) is exactly why George Mason opposed the pardon power altogether. At some point, Congress might give serious consideration to a constitutional amendment that, for example, makes pardons illegal for individuals personally known to the president and makes the misuse of the power judicially reviewable.
As the author points out, Stone is the most glaring example of an abuse because he possessed information that related to Trump's exposure in the Mueller investigation. After making it clear to Stone his silence would be rewarded Stone was in fact pardoned. I can think of no other example of a previous prez so manifestly abusing his authority.
The question at hand being, can we agree no POTUS should be allowed to pardon someone who could act as a hostile witness to the prez in a civil or criminal case or in an impeachment trial?
But this thread isn't about the sordid MaL affair. It's about whether we all can agree the absolute power to pardon people possessed by the POTUS needs to be reformed?
One of the features of Trump's presidency was the extent to which he exposed weaknesses in the laws, rules, and protocols governing a prez's behavior. Weaknesses that existed because no one ever contemplated that a prez would so extensively exploit them. This article explores some of the areas in need of reform and suggests remedies to address them.
Repairing the Rule of Law: An Agenda for Post-Trump Reform
What should be done in a post-Trump world to restore the rule of law?
One of them being.............-Pardon reform. There can be little doubt of two things. First, as currently constructed, the president’s pardon power is nearly absolute. Second, President Trump’s use of the pardon power has transgressed the Founders’ expectations. Indeed, the idea that a president might pardon his own criminal confederates (as is arguably the case with Roger Stone) is exactly why George Mason opposed the pardon power altogether. At some point, Congress might give serious consideration to a constitutional amendment that, for example, makes pardons illegal for individuals personally known to the president and makes the misuse of the power judicially reviewable.
As the author points out, Stone is the most glaring example of an abuse because he possessed information that related to Trump's exposure in the Mueller investigation. After making it clear to Stone his silence would be rewarded Stone was in fact pardoned. I can think of no other example of a previous prez so manifestly abusing his authority.
The question at hand being, can we agree no POTUS should be allowed to pardon someone who could act as a hostile witness to the prez in a civil or criminal case or in an impeachment trial?
