Presidential pardon changes

[para bellum]

It is a royal pain to get 34 states to even agree to have the Convention.
Getting 38 to approve a new amendment will be very difficult, which is why the states need to see the list of proposed Amendments first.

I don't want to make it easier to amend the Constitution, I just want to have the Convention. I want to normalize the process, and make it a regular component of governance. Every 25 years sounds good to me, but I am open for some other interval.

One of the reasons it's hard to get 34 States to agree to hold the Convention is because it is limited in scope. Take away the limit, and let it run wild. It won't make ratifying an amendment any easier, but it will make it easier to put it on the table.

There have already been 34 States to call for a balanced budget amendment, but the time it took for that to happen is so drawn out that it's irrelevant. 34 States are not calling for it today...

 

[kyzr]

I don't want to make it easier to amend the Constitution, I just want to have the Convention. I want to normalize the process, and make it a regular component of governance. Every 25 years sounds good to me, but I am open for some other interval.

One of the reasons it's hard to get 34 States to agree to hold the Convention is because it is limited in scope. Take away the limit, and let it run wild. It won't make ratifying an amendment any easier, but it will make it easier to put it on the table.

There have already been 34 States to call for a balanced budget amendment, but the time it took for that to happen is so drawn out that it's irrelevant. 34 States are not calling for it today...

An open convention is a non-starter.
No one will ever risk the 2nd.

 

[para bellum]

An open convention is a non-starter.
No one will ever risk the 2nd.

Do you think there are 38 States that would vote to repeal the 2A? I don't.

If you let them offer it, maybe blue States will attend. I don't think a balanced budget amendment is going to attract them...

Everything on the table is my view. Repeal the 16th and 17th? Secession language? Put it up there. Let's find out.

I'm not afraid of the debate. I want to see the States reassert their rightful position in the Republic, not be subservient to D.C. That means an Article V Convention.

 

[ThisIsMe]

First. This has nothing to do with Biden's recent pardons. He's well within his Constitutional powers and the timing of his pardons is no different than essentially all past Presidents.

That said I think we need to make at least 1 change and that is to the timing of pardons. We should require that all pardons be submitted and approved prior to the election. Maybe even back it up a week. If a President is going to grant clemency or pardon someone the electorate has a right to know that prior to casting their ballot. If the sitting President is reelected, he is free to then grant pardons post the election but if not or is a lame duck President all pardon applications will be held until the next President is sworn in.

Nope, the lotus gives the president the power of the pardon. He/she doesn't have to ask congress.

Now, defining how that power is used would be more useful. The cotus says a president can pardon someone, this means, someone who's already been convicted and sentenced. This doest not mean you have the power to absolve someone for any and all crimes they haven't been charged for. That leads down a ridiculous path.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I think SCOTUS should step in and require that pardons be limited to identified offenses against the United States.

The cotus already makes that definition.

 

[ThisIsMe]

There will be many more pardons, most of them aimed at drying up investigation leads.

And that's not how the power of pardon us supposed to be used.

 

[boevans]

There will be many pardons for January 6 terrorists who sacked the Capitol and wounded police officers.

Yes, we see that coming as well.

 

[boevans]

And that's not how the power of pardon us supposed to be used.

To stop orange bitch revenge tours: it sure is, bucky.

 

[Couchpotato]

But, didn't you just say that if Trump pardons people it should be approved by others?

No

 

[Couchpotato]

You realize that will require a Constitutional amendment.

Yes.

 

[Independent thinker]

No

You said voters should approve by their votes. That contradicts executive privilege.

 

[Couchpotato]

You said voters should approve by their votes. That contradicts executive privilege.

Try reading what I said again.

 

[Calypso Jones]

NOT aging well.

 

[jwoodie]

The cotus says a president can pardon someone, this means, someone who's already been convicted and sentenced. This doest not mean you have the power to absolve someone for any and all crimes they haven't been charged for.

There seems to be some disagreement on this point:

SCOTUS has already ruled on this:

Schick v. Reed : "The power of clemency flows from the Constitution alone, not from any legislative enactments, and it cannot be modified, abridged, or diminished by the Congress"

Has SCOTUS ever ruled on the Constitutionality of a Presidential pardon? If not, it should. This could be done by the DOJ charging someone who has been given a blanket pardon with a specific crime. The defendant would claim immunity, but this could be appealed all the way up.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Who's going to pardon him though?

The Grimm Reaper.

 

[NetJedi]

Has SCOTUS ever ruled on the Constitutionality of a Presidential pardon? If not, it should. This could be done by the DOJ charging someone who has been given a blanket pardon with a specific crime. The defendant would claim immunity, but this could be appealed all the way up.

Yeah, in the case I've already cited in this thread.

Schick v. Reed, 419 U.S. 256 (1974)

 

[jwoodie]

Yeah, in the case I've already cited in this thread.

Schick v. Reed, 419 U.S. 256 (1974)

Pardon me for assuming that you knew anything about this subject matter.

Schick v. Reed was about a commutation of a death sentence to life without parole. The issue was whether the commutation could add "without parole" to a life sentence statute that included parole provisions. The Court rules that adding "without parole" to the commutation was within the Constitutional prerogative of the President.

As such, this case has nothing to do with blanket pardons or the definition of "Offenses against the United States." The defendant had already been tried, convicted and sentenced according to US law.

 

[NetJedi]

Pardon me for assuming that you knew anything about this subject matter.

That's nice, I assume you know nothing at all about it, which is why I was kind enough to provide what you asked for.

Schick v. Reed was about a commutation of a death sentence to life without parole. The issue was whether the commutation could add "without parole" to a life sentence statute that included parole provisions. The Court rules that adding "without parole" to the commutation was within the Constitutional prerogative of the President.

The decision directly addresses the limits of Presidential Pardon powers under Article II. Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution.

Instead of acting like jerk-off maybe you should read the actual decision instead of just the headline case notes.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

There seems to be some disagreement on this point:

Has SCOTUS ever ruled on the Constitutionality of a Presidential pardon? If not, it should. This could be done by the DOJ charging someone who has been given a blanket pardon with a specific crime. The defendant would claim immunity, but this could be appealed all the way up.

It has. You can't read, so you apparently don't understand. The case mentioned in your previous post basically said there are no limits. Case closed. Have a nice day.

 

[jwoodie]

I assume you know nothing at all about it, which is why I was kind enough to provide what you asked for.

You provided nothing more than a case name (twice), and forgot to mention that it was about a commutation, not a pardon.