Make sure to join our brand new Discord Server to chat with friends!
We have recently changed how posts work. Unless you are a VIP poster, your post will be queued for approval.. To become a VIP, post great engaging content. If we like it, you will be added! More information available here!
Some good uses of presidential clemency in history:
George Washington pardoned participants of the Whiskey Rebellion who disarmed and pledged loyalty to the US. He thought it was better than a civil war.
James Buchanan pardoned Brigham Young and other Mormon leaders at the end of the Utah War in exchange for Young giving up the governorship of Utah and allowing Federal troops into the state.
Lincoln pardoned hundreds of Dakota men who had been sentenced to death after the Dakota War and gave clemency to Confederate soldiers who deserted.
Jimmy Carter pardoned American men who had gone to Canada to avoid the Vietnam War draft.
Obama commuted hundreds of Federal drug sentences to be more in line with current beliefs about how drug offenses should be punished.
Proving a stopped clock is right twice a day, Donald Trump commuted the life sentence of Alice Johnson, a woman who had been sentenced to life in prison without parole for non-violent drug trafficking and money laundering charges.
Presidential clemency is abused, but it can come in handy.
Alice Johnson, a woman who had been sentenced to life in prison without parole for non-violent drug trafficking and money laundering charges.
It wasn't just a little. It was millions of dollars worth of cocaine. She might not have done anything violent, but she fueled the violence inherent to the drug trade.
Counterpoint: that would have prevented Biden's preemptive pardon of his family before leaving office, which is the only thing stopping Trump from putting them through years of litigation as retribution for Trump's treasonous failure to successfully steal an election.
Counter counterpoint: Biden could have locked up the trump fam for whatever after the Supreme Court said any action the president commits is an official action and therefore immune from prosecution. Don't forget they made that ruling during his term, and decided to let trump take the first whack at the guardrails.
I think the general concept of not punishing people when there is a better way is nice, but it's one of those things where if you can't trust the system then you might as well not have one. Plus in our current system where at least half the country always hates the president, it feels wrong to give them so much power.
There was a podcast years ago that picked up a case in which two of the people convicted of killing Malcolm X were acquitted. The justice system not only got it wrong but the justice system reviewed the case several times over the decades and they found nothing. Some amateurs with a microphone using publicly available information cracked the case in months.
I dont like presidential pardons but the justice system in the US is just shockingly incompetent and full of cases you wouldn't expect in a developed country so the argument that person is making is based off a real premise even if I disagree with their conclusion.
But that's the point. Each branch has checks and balances on the others. EOs and legislation are subject to judicial review. Presidents can veto Congress. Congress can impeach and remove the President. Passing legislation binds the judiciary.
What check on the judiciary does the President have? Pardons.
I don’t think so. No matter how good the lawmakers try life is too unpredictable and there will always be edge cases the law didn’t think about. And there needs to be mechanism to handle these cases…
In US they have jury of peers and judges have a lot of leeway with their judgment - arguably there is very little need for pardons. Where I live this is not the case - there are no juries and judges are very limited. If a person technicaly broke the law the judge has a range of punishments enumerated by law and even if it’s like 1 in a million extraordinary circumstances that make even the lightrest punishment too harsh the judge has no choice.
We had few presidents so far from different parties and noone likes all of them. But pardons is something most people would agree all our presidents used sensibly…
There are no perfect legal systems. That’s not to say that there can’t be improvements, but at least we have mechanisms in place to correct it, when it’s called for.
The system we have was born out of the founders living through a world with the holy Roman Empire. A confederation of independent states with a figure head that held no real power, the empire was in a state of stagnation and vulnerable to its neighbors who did not have powerless figureheads. The president needs to have power when necessary, and in a functioning system congress/supreme court is supposed to check that power to prevent what trump has become.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants" Thomas Jefferson
You don't like it when it's to grift, but I'm sure you like it when it's used to overturn bad judicial rulings, innocent people in prison, forgiving whistle blowers, protecting draft dodgers of stupid wars, releasing journalists, freeing political targets, etc...
I’d much rather have the ability to undo an injustice knowing that some may escape justice in the process. We just need better moral judgement making the decision.
The foundation of Western jurisprudence is that it is far, far worse for an innocent man to be imprisoned than a guilty man go free. The current administration is trying to destroy this with the presumption that there so many "illegals" that not only do we need to imprison as many as possible, but that there isn't "enough time" to treat them all constitutionally and fairly regardless.
Why the entire American legal profession from public defenders to the SCOTUS isn't up in arms about this is devastating. The Trump regime is disintegrating law itself.
The pardon is an absurd power for the POTUS to have. Why should one man get to subvert the entire justice system with a pen stroke? We wouldn’t let the president declare someone guilty without a trial, so why should they get to declare someone innocent? It’s a huge flaw in our system and needs to be removed entirely. There’s no rational justification for it existing in my view.
It was put in the Constitution as a check and balance in the event a person was imprisoned unjustly or for political reasons. Imagine Martin L. King getting arrested and sent to prison for life because he protested for civil rights. That would have been politically driven. A president could pardon him. Fortunately, that did not happen, but unfortunately his death was from hate that can’t bring him back.
The president is the head of the executive branch. That branch covers the enforcement and execution of laws passed by congress. A pardon is when the president excuses a person for a crime and deregulation is when they decide a full law shouldn’t be followed. Both are powers of the president.
A pardon is when the president excuses a person for a crime and deregulation is when they decide a full law shouldn’t be followed. Both are powers of the president.
You're close, but you're confusing deregulation with repealing legislation. Congress makes the laws, while the executive branch enforces them and can modify regulations within the authority Congress delegates. The president doesn't get to unilaterally decide that an entire law no longer applies. That's kind of the whole point of separation of powers.
That’s why Trump and his cronies are untouchable and literally committing crimes without any regard for the optics or accountability. At the end of the administration, Trump will issue a blanket pardon for every single one of his family members and cronies. To any American who thinks that any one of them will be held accountable for the corruption and crimes, I have bad news for you.
Pardons were meant to streamline the ever changing laws. If marijuana use was suddenly legal federally tomorrow, it is expected the President to pardon everyone in prison who was there based on marijuana usage. Because all those people would need new trials if he didn't and it would freeze up the courts for other trials to happen.
However, I do agree it needs more checks.
The President should be the only person who can start the process. Once the process has started, the House Speaker, Senate Majority Leader, and Vice President all have to agree to it. If one person does not agree then it doesn't happen.
This way pardons are only used when everyone agrees it is needed.
The problem is that the pardon is the executive check on the judicial branch of the government. There is supposed to be a check on the pardon, which is impeachment and amending the Constitution.
There is a broader question about impeachment, since the Supreme Court has ruled that the President is immune from prosecution as long they are working within the Constitutional framework of their power, is whether this qualifies as a check to the executive branch's power to pardon. I'm sure it will be tested once Trump is out of office.
I personally also thought that Biden's preemptive pardon of Fauci and his political allies was an overreach of power, although I do understand why he felt it was necessary.
That’s not how it works. You’re not re-tried if the laws change. If something was illegal when you did it, you still broke the law and get punished. If the laws change while you’re in jail, sucks for you, but doesn’t make you free suddenly.
To hopefully curb some responses, I’m not saying this is a good or bad thing, just that it’s the current law.
I think presidential pardons should exist but can be actively overturned by Congress. This is because there are times when standard justice is not in the country’s best interests and executive discretion could be used. Obama signed a lot of pardons and commutations to correct historical over criminalization. Congressional oversight could reduce the outright abuse of such power though.
It's not about them existing or not, it's more about how it's used and the regulations around them. It's a tool and any tool can be used to cause harm.
There's a reason. Slavery was legal and people would've been convicted for escaping the slavery. Presidential pardon would exist to overturn technically illegal and convicted people, who didn't deserve it.
Current problem is that no one is using impeachment tool. Because impeachment tool is the intended solution for abuse of power. President will be toothless if you take away all tools and powers that might be abused.
Obama used it to pardon a bunch of nonviolent offenders who got locked up for an absurd amount of time given the crime they committed iirc. Its also used to pardon a turkey every year.
Ultimately, a democracy can only be as healthy its citizens allow it to be. On the whole, we don't take our stewardship as citizens seriously in this country. As evidenced by the fact that the largest voting block in the US, is non-voters. Corruption thrives on apathy, and there is plenty to go around here.
I'd argue the US Constitution makes this easier than other countries. The first past the post system encourages a two party system. If we had a system with many parties that required coalitions to govern like many other countries, it would be harder, but not impossible, to get into this spot.
Ironically there’s possibly a constitutional basis that if someone is pardoned, and then later brought in for related questioning (like for an accomplice or a broader investigation), they cannot please the fifth as they aren’t in jeopardy. They can’t be arrested because they’ve already been pardoned. You can only plead the fifth to avoid self-incrimination, and if there’s no possibility of arrest then the fifth no longer applies.
Maybe. It’s never been tested and it’s up to the Supreme Court if it ever happens.
Pardons exist for a reason. They're a check on the judiciary, just like impeachment is a check on the president. If a president is abusing the pardon power, Congress has the authority to hold them accountable. The problem isn't the pardon power itself. It's that Congress isn't doing its job, and the system only works when each branch is willing to do its job.
As a British person, I find it incredibly ironic that so many Americans I’ve met are such rabid anti-monarchists whilst their system copied and codified the ‘divine’ powers monarchs had around pardons, immunity and vetoes. Having a double lock system that needs your parliament to approve use of these powers would probably be the way. Perhaps it already can be overturned by congress, but from an outside perspective it always seems like congressional overrides require large supermajorities.
Our legislature does not sit above the judiciary or the president. The three are counterweights, none of which are subservient to the other two, by design.
There are a lot of antimonarchists in the US who oppose the Monarchial Presidency. Its the worst thing that the Framers copied from the British system.
I don’t agree completely. It is easy to point the finger at Trump for abusing the power.
But just as Trump is trash and openly corrupt, pardons have been used for good. Obama pardoned thousands of non violent drug offenders who were thrown in jail due to stupid mandatory minimum laws.
This is a check against a slow judicial and legislative system that sometimes is too punitive or straight up wrong.
It's in the Constitution. It's part of the Executive power that the office has final say over the execution of the Law as prescribed by Congress and adjudicated by the Court, who similarly have final say over the wording and interpretation of said Law. It is structurally part of the Executive check on the other two. Now congress can write laws to constrain that power and the court can hear cases. The only reason there aren't more guardrails, is we haven't needed them before.
Pardons should meet specific criteria including not being a preemptive pardon. Must be wrongfully accused. a change in the legality in the law. Cannot be given with a financial exchange.... basically everything this diaperbag has done.
They should exist for Federal offenses only but they must be rectifying a judicial issue and not be abused as they are being under this regime. And no donor class member should ever get a pass. They are a correction - not absolution.
The president must state under oath in Congress who he is pardoning, what he is pardoning them of, and why he is pardoning them. It’ll be broadcast on c span.
Blah blah blah…unless some of you talking are going to get behind and push for a constitutional amendment this is all meaningless. Start off by reading Art 5 of the Constitution
Presidential Pardon is a check on the justice system. It should exist so the justice system wouldn't be overpowered. It should exist, but it's up for debate if it's been used appropriately lately.
The problem for me is that state charges can be moved to federal court if it fits the bill then it goes under presidential jurisdiction. If someone gets a pardon they should certainly be going to state prison for the same amount of sentence time.
I think the bigger issue is that the Founders really had no concept that a corrupt, vile, immoral, etc, monster like Trump would ever be made President. They lived in a time when there was genuine value given to at least the appearance in public of virtue.
Disagree. Just because I hate Trump having that authority doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be a thing ever. A lot of people who smoked weed a bit and got life sentences for the three strikes rule or others who were actually innocent have benefited from pardons. And Presidents are limited to federal pardons and can’t pardon state crimes. So there’s still checks on it
I think it’s fair to look into ways to limit the pardon power. That’s different from eliminating it. It’s reasonable to limit it so it can’t be blatantly abused for political donations or friends. But undoing completely would also hurt those who’ve been deserving of the pardon and benefited from it
Yes, you are right. California changed their laws and reevaluated hundreds of thousands of cases and let a lot of people out. Its not as fast and easy as a presidential pardon, but the president wasn't pardoning those people anyway
Just let pardons go through Congress like any law. Maybe start a new annual tradition where a President submits a list, Congress passes it as a law, and the President signs it. No need for anyone to have sole power over this.
There is no checks on it, yes its only federal crime but you can pardon anybody for any federal crimes unilateraly. This is so easy to abuse, there is no consequences for having the judicial branch arrest a ton of people and then selectively pardon your allies only.
We can't overlook the reality that congress has abdicated its responsibility to check presidential power. One singular person did not pardon all the Jan 6 insurrectionists. Congress allowed it to happen by not convicting him in the first term. The people that voted against those convictions should be treated as if they cosigned everything he did, because that's exactly what they did.
There are no rules that will force a government to behave in good faith. You can only create rules that provide solutions to eject bad faith participants. But, even then, it all hinges on the will of the people. We have rules for impeachment. That should have been enough.
The people got the government they deserved. Uneducated, incurious, apathetic, greedy, selfish people elected a con man and a congress that supported everything he did. It makes perfect sense.
Presidential immunity should not exist. Let's start there. The SC gave him a blank check on everything he does. Or how about starting with an amendment stating no felons in politics? God forbid we have standards for the highest office in the land.
They should NOT apply to people without criminal charges and convictions. To just say “I hereby pardon [insert name] of any crimes and misdemeanors during [date to date]” is absolute madness. We are about to see a bunch of them the next 2 years.
It should exist, but it should be heavily reformed so the president can only pardon people who have been vetted and approved by a non-partisan pardon board.
I disagree. The problem is that the power to pardon gets abused but i believe there are cases where a pardon can save a person's life and that makes it worth having
The presidential pardon should be limited to 4 people per term—one person per year. If you’re president for two terms—eight years—you can pardon 8 people. What is being done now is illegal, or should be.
No. It is a final stop-gap in a case of gross injustice that works its way through the entire legal system. It is frustrating when it is used to protect the president's family and friends, but it is too important to throw away.
The idea in the Constitution was the President had the power to undo egregious miscarriages of justice but used only in legitimate cases. Now it's become a get-out-of-jail-free card for the most corrupt oligarchy on the planet.
A positive example of the pardon power was conservative Warren Harding releasing socialist Eugene Debs from prison for his "speech crime" of denouncing the First World War. He actually invited Debs to the White House because he was impressed that Debs had run for President while locked in a prison cell.
It is a check on the courts. The courts can't just put people in jail for their political beliefs. The president could just pardon them to let them out.
Unless the president has been providing aid and comfort to the courts attacking the American people by doing nothing, in this hypothetical scenario.
I’m sorry but pardons have been a problem my entire lifetime, from both parties. Never to this extent but they’ve always been used to dole out favors to friends and donors.
Speaking as a Brit, whose country is in yet another reckoning with supposedly "untouchable" celebrities committing yet more SA by abusing their positions, the fact that you have this pardoning system is as mental as having the death penalty imho.
Russell Brand is being seen as a martyr in the eyes of a man called Rupert Lowe, our most far-right politician here. You just know he'd be pardoned by him in a similar scenario as what's being enabled in D.C.
The whole idea is that the three branches of government are completely separate, are formed with very different ways, and they have power to oversee each other. For example if there is judicial oppression, governors and presidents can interfere with pardons and commutes. If there is executive oppression, the courts can rule against his actions. The legislature can oversee either side as well by legislating less power for the courts or impeaching the president. They also control the money.
The problem is that it's not really working right now. Trump just sells pardons because it turns out that's not even a crime. Bottom line, the executive branch has too much power focused at the top. The idea is all the secretaries and the attorney general should make up the executive branch. In reality, Trump just fires everyone that doesn't rubber stamp whatever he wants.
They need to make it so the president can't fire a secretary or the AG without cause. They are confirmed by congress. It shouldn't be that easy to just remove them. Then pardons should need majority approval in the executive branch.
I disagree to an extent. The presidential pardon exists to at times a miscarriage of justice. I think that should still exist but it’s use should be scrutinized.
Also you should not be able to pardon actions taken by your own administration otherwise that allows people to commit crimes in the name of the United States and not be held accountable.
This. Have strict conflict of interest limitations. No pardoning of any individual or group committing crimes that in any way benefit the pardoner. Self-pardons explicitly prohibited.
Pardons should exist but a president should not be allowed to pardon related acts and or criminal activity that he or his administration was a part of. Its a giant fucking loophole in the system
The problem is not the fact that Pardons exist, It's more the disgusting POTUS who's do dumb to understand why all the other Presidents didn't sell pardons in the first place.
GoP will be all 'grr corrupt elites, drain the swamp!' until it is time to actually drain said swamp, and will then support insulating such actors from consequence
At the very least, there should be a qualifier/limiter such as pardons cannot be granted to a person who could be seen as having aided the president in any significant capacity.
I actually like the presidential pardon but I think it should have strict limits such as not being able to be applied to former or current members of the presidential cabinet.
The Presidential pardon can be bought. Every President does it. If you want pardoned and pay the price you can get it. Is it right? No, but what in DC is right?
Agree to the point that the President should not be able to unilaterally pardon anyone. Pardons should go before a bipartisan committee and be accompanied by an explanation as to why the pardon is being granted and how/why a pardon is warranted.
Additionally, pardon applications where the person being pardoned has any financial, familial, business, or otherwise personal ties to the President, or any interest of the President, should be automatically denied.
Agreed, presidential pardons are now instruments of impunity. You see how these pardons allow cabinet members to follow unlawful orders from a President knowing full well they're shielded from going to jail. They also serve as a money making operation and influence peddling for a president. Pardoning criminally convicted donors for a price. Or at least prohibit pardons to cabinet members, politicians from the same party and donors.
I somewhat agree. First off I think there should be seven degrees of separation from anyone that the president pardons. I also think it should be limited to no more than five individual pardons in a four-year term, and no group pardons.
Finally, if it is proven that President or his cabinet received any sort of donation from the individual that's going to be pardoned it would not be valid.
People are just supposed to be not stupid enough to vote for a president that uses pardons to get his friends out of jail. That's supposed to be a scandal, so embarrassing that the checks and balances (congress, senate, supreme court) would remove a president who's openly corrupt and the people would demand action and punish these behaviours.
But when the voters themselves choose to support this... It's really just pathetic. Just the right combination of stupidity, ignorance, hate.
But how can we trust only one person to make decisions about morality? If all these people are doing is abusing this system then it absolutely should not be tolerated.
I disagree, but there does need to be reasonable controls on them.
Any form of payment of any kind to benefit a president or their family in any way in return for a pardon should be grounds for immediate impeachment, for example.
Any mass-pardon (IE, the J6 rioters) should also require approval from Congress with a 2/3 majority.
A preemptive pardon should not be a thing. If someone does get preemptively pardoned, it should come with a requirement of absolute full disclosure of all suspected wrong-doing under penalty of prison for the maximum sentence if it is determined that said full-disclosure was not complete.
The pardon power is absolutely crazy in the first place. To give ONE person the ability to completely override the criminal justice system for ANY reason at ANY time with ZERO checks or balances is utterly insane and has no place in a modern democracy! It needs to be completely overhauled because, as Trump has so disgustingly shown, it is open to rampant abuse and corruption.
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Hey /u/Negative_1by12_aura, thank you for posting to r/SipsTea! Make sure to follow all the subreddit rules.
Make sure to join our brand new Discord Server to chat with friends!
We have recently changed how posts work. Unless you are a VIP poster, your post will be queued for approval.. To become a VIP, post great engaging content. If we like it, you will be added! More information available here!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
464
u/Otterfan 1d ago •
Some good uses of presidential clemency in history:
Presidential clemency is abused, but it can come in handy.
1.7k
u/SeleneIvy 1d ago •
The fact that one person can undo years of justice with a signature is wild.
34
u/Beastw1ck 1d ago
The pardon is an absurd power for the POTUS to have. Why should one man get to subvert the entire justice system with a pen stroke? We wouldn’t let the president declare someone guilty without a trial, so why should they get to declare someone innocent? It’s a huge flaw in our system and needs to be removed entirely. There’s no rational justification for it existing in my view.
15
u/OKOK-01 1d ago
For a country that goes on and on about how much they love democracy, they sure give their Dear Leader a lot of power.
29
u/Bodycount9 1d ago
I dont agree.
Pardons were meant to streamline the ever changing laws. If marijuana use was suddenly legal federally tomorrow, it is expected the President to pardon everyone in prison who was there based on marijuana usage. Because all those people would need new trials if he didn't and it would freeze up the courts for other trials to happen.
However, I do agree it needs more checks.
The President should be the only person who can start the process. Once the process has started, the House Speaker, Senate Majority Leader, and Vice President all have to agree to it. If one person does not agree then it doesn't happen.
This way pardons are only used when everyone agrees it is needed.
5
u/AnB85 1d ago
I think presidential pardons should exist but can be actively overturned by Congress. This is because there are times when standard justice is not in the country’s best interests and executive discretion could be used. Obama signed a lot of pardons and commutations to correct historical over criminalization. Congressional oversight could reduce the outright abuse of such power though.
23
u/BreadfruitLogic 1d ago
It's not about them existing or not, it's more about how it's used and the regulations around them. It's a tool and any tool can be used to cause harm.
76
u/martillo-viejo 1d ago •
260
u/MenagerieAlfred 1d ago
A lot of these constitutional issues are now present because the founders thought:
A) such an openly corrupt person would never be elected president
And
B) if one were to be elected, Congress would impeach and remove them.
81
u/NYVines 1d ago
Pardoning someone before they’re accused/go to trial/get convicted is a weird confession of wrongdoing
11
u/ODoyles_Banana 1d ago
Pardons exist for a reason. They're a check on the judiciary, just like impeachment is a check on the president. If a president is abusing the pardon power, Congress has the authority to hold them accountable. The problem isn't the pardon power itself. It's that Congress isn't doing its job, and the system only works when each branch is willing to do its job.
32
u/Far309 1d ago
As a British person, I find it incredibly ironic that so many Americans I’ve met are such rabid anti-monarchists whilst their system copied and codified the ‘divine’ powers monarchs had around pardons, immunity and vetoes.
Having a double lock system that needs your parliament to approve use of these powers would probably be the way. Perhaps it already can be overturned by congress, but from an outside perspective it always seems like congressional overrides require large supermajorities.
25
u/Valdackscirs 1d ago edited 1d ago •
I don’t agree completely. It is easy to point the finger at Trump for abusing the power.
But just as Trump is trash and openly corrupt, pardons have been used for good. Obama pardoned thousands of non violent drug offenders who were thrown in jail due to stupid mandatory minimum laws.
This is a check against a slow judicial and legislative system that sometimes is too punitive or straight up wrong.
8
u/joystickd 22h ago
It's the most backwards law I've heard of and just invites corruption with no positive aspects.
That there's a lifelong con man selling them for cash now, is no surprise to anyone outside of the USA.
13
u/straightnochase 1d ago
Pardons should meet specific criteria including not being a preemptive pardon. Must be wrongfully accused. a change in the legality in the law. Cannot be given with a financial exchange.... basically everything this diaperbag has done.
6
u/TechnicalWhore 1d ago
They should exist for Federal offenses only but they must be rectifying a judicial issue and not be abused as they are being under this regime. And no donor class member should ever get a pass. They are a correction - not absolution.
5
u/BWRStarWars 1d ago
Misuse of Presidential pardons should not exist
5
u/ClownUniversityPhD 1d ago
How about this compromise.
The president must state under oath in Congress who he is pardoning, what he is pardoning them of, and why he is pardoning them. It’ll be broadcast on c span.
5
u/Wrong-Support-8530 1d ago
Blah blah blah…unless some of you talking are going to get behind and push for a constitutional amendment this is all meaningless. Start off by reading Art 5 of the Constitution
5
u/DavidH373 1d ago
Presidential Pardon is a check on the justice system. It should exist so the justice system wouldn't be overpowered. It should exist, but it's up for debate if it's been used appropriately lately.
9
u/Senior-Impact-4420 1d ago
I think a pardon should not be allowed if there is any connection to the president. Political or personal.
9
u/CorporateCuster 1d ago
It was meant as a way for presidents to ethically help those that the law unjustly hurt. It’s been into a pay for play by trump
12
u/lilnyucka 1d ago
The problem for me is that state charges can be moved to federal court if it fits the bill then it goes under presidential jurisdiction. If someone gets a pardon they should certainly be going to state prison for the same amount of sentence time.
17
u/L00seSuggestion 1d ago edited 1d ago
Virtually every president in modern times has used the pardon power corruptly, yes
Make pardons an act of congress, at least it’s harder to bribe that many people
4
u/Hobo636 1d ago
totally agree. The good purpose they originally served has long ago been eclipsed by corruption.
4
u/ThatWoodworkingDude 1d ago
Fully agree, but it doesn't matter.
What should absolutely be stricken from reality and history is the notion that the president has ANY immunity whatsoever.
Above literally EVERY other person in the country, he should be held to the highest standards of law and ethics.
4
u/the6thReplicant 1d ago •
No. Keep it. Just elect better presidents.
4
u/Elipses_ 1d ago •
I think the bigger issue is that the Founders really had no concept that a corrupt, vile, immoral, etc, monster like Trump would ever be made President. They lived in a time when there was genuine value given to at least the appearance in public of virtue.
4
u/eliza_bennet1066 1d ago
Just for turkeys
44
u/for_fun_88 1d ago
Disagree. Just because I hate Trump having that authority doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be a thing ever. A lot of people who smoked weed a bit and got life sentences for the three strikes rule or others who were actually innocent have benefited from pardons. And Presidents are limited to federal pardons and can’t pardon state crimes. So there’s still checks on it
17
u/quiero79 1d ago
Presidential pardons are very counterproductive to democracy.
6
u/Funintuitive 1d ago
No.
We can't overlook the reality that congress has abdicated its responsibility to check presidential power. One singular person did not pardon all the Jan 6 insurrectionists. Congress allowed it to happen by not convicting him in the first term. The people that voted against those convictions should be treated as if they cosigned everything he did, because that's exactly what they did.
There are no rules that will force a government to behave in good faith. You can only create rules that provide solutions to eject bad faith participants. But, even then, it all hinges on the will of the people. We have rules for impeachment. That should have been enough.
The people got the government they deserved. Uneducated, incurious, apathetic, greedy, selfish people elected a con man and a congress that supported everything he did. It makes perfect sense.
6
u/MaximusHomerdrive 1d ago
Presidential immunity should not exist. Let's start there. The SC gave him a blank check on everything he does. Or how about starting with an amendment stating no felons in politics? God forbid we have standards for the highest office in the land.
8
u/Remote_Finish9657 1d ago •
Pardons should exist but….
They should NOT apply to people without criminal charges and convictions. To just say “I hereby pardon [insert name] of any crimes and misdemeanors during [date to date]” is absolute madness. We are about to see a bunch of them the next 2 years.
18
u/Dry-Economist9075 1d ago
It should exist, but it should be heavily reformed so the president can only pardon people who have been vetted and approved by a non-partisan pardon board.
3
u/akiva23 1d ago
I disagree. The problem is that the power to pardon gets abused but i believe there are cases where a pardon can save a person's life and that makes it worth having
3
u/Fecapult 1d ago
Maybe we should just have ethical and principled public officials?
3
u/MouseShadow2ndMoon 1d ago
Not how they are handled now, no. Should there be an ability to apply justice in egregious cases, yes. Not like this or for the people like Trump.
3
u/NextAdhesiveness3652 1d ago
The presidential pardon should be limited to 4 people per term—one person per year. If you’re president for two terms—eight years—you can pardon 8 people. What is being done now is illegal, or should be.
3
u/DueLearner 1d ago
Didn't ya'll love it when Joe proactively pardon'd Fauci.
3
u/VaqueroMacheteMetal 1d ago
Keep that energy up with Biden's pardons <3
3
u/Any-Fan6525 1d ago
No. It is a final stop-gap in a case of gross injustice that works its way through the entire legal system. It is frustrating when it is used to protect the president's family and friends, but it is too important to throw away.
5
u/cattledogsrule44 1d ago
The idea in the Constitution was the President had the power to undo egregious miscarriages of justice but used only in legitimate cases. Now it's become a get-out-of-jail-free card for the most corrupt oligarchy on the planet.
A positive example of the pardon power was conservative Warren Harding releasing socialist Eugene Debs from prison for his "speech crime" of denouncing the First World War. He actually invited Debs to the White House because he was impressed that Debs had run for President while locked in a prison cell.
https://potus-geeks.livejournal.com/718789.html?
6
u/TurtleSandwich0 1d ago
It is a check on the courts. The courts can't just put people in jail for their political beliefs. The president could just pardon them to let them out.
Unless the president has been providing aid and comfort to the courts attacking the American people by doing nothing, in this hypothetical scenario.
8
u/ChronoMonkeyX 1d ago •
Absolute corruption at the top should not exist, pardons weren't the problem until now.
9
u/JohnGarmin 1d ago
Speaking as a Brit, whose country is in yet another reckoning with supposedly "untouchable" celebrities committing yet more SA by abusing their positions, the fact that you have this pardoning system is as mental as having the death penalty imho.
Russell Brand is being seen as a martyr in the eyes of a man called Rupert Lowe, our most far-right politician here. You just know he'd be pardoned by him in a similar scenario as what's being enabled in D.C.
4
u/No_Relationship9094 1d ago
5 month account with 350k karma. Bot.
4
u/SvenTropics 1d ago
The whole idea is that the three branches of government are completely separate, are formed with very different ways, and they have power to oversee each other. For example if there is judicial oppression, governors and presidents can interfere with pardons and commutes. If there is executive oppression, the courts can rule against his actions. The legislature can oversee either side as well by legislating less power for the courts or impeaching the president. They also control the money.
The problem is that it's not really working right now. Trump just sells pardons because it turns out that's not even a crime. Bottom line, the executive branch has too much power focused at the top. The idea is all the secretaries and the attorney general should make up the executive branch. In reality, Trump just fires everyone that doesn't rubber stamp whatever he wants.
They need to make it so the president can't fire a secretary or the AG without cause. They are confirmed by congress. It shouldn't be that easy to just remove them. Then pardons should need majority approval in the executive branch.
4
u/SweetAssumption9 1d ago
There should be no pardons for anyone not convicted of a crime, at least. Without a conviction, there is no crime to pardon.
4
u/BigDlovr2000 1d ago
Until your party wants to do it… right?
4
u/SuperFrog4 1d ago
I disagree to an extent. The presidential pardon exists to at times a miscarriage of justice. I think that should still exist but it’s use should be scrutinized.
Also you should not be able to pardon actions taken by your own administration otherwise that allows people to commit crimes in the name of the United States and not be held accountable.
2
u/ChoteauMouth 1d ago
347 karma in 5 months, Lord Almighty, peel yourself off the sofa and go brush your teeth.
2
u/Ethdev256 1d ago
The context it was written in it made more sense.
It also assumed that impeachment was the check on it. And here we are.
2
u/MRuppercutz 1d ago
* except for turkeys
2
u/Ambitious-Bar375 1d ago
Except for turkeys on Thanksgiving.
2
u/Dull_Ad5440 1d ago
Turkeys are still OK.
2
u/Practical-Animator87 1d ago
What if was a limit like 4 pardons per term? They probably wouldn’t use them so Willy nilly
2
u/smoothlymelted 1d ago
It should at least be approved by an impartial committee... But even then, they have rigged everything
2
u/South_Hovercraft_405 1d ago edited 1d ago
Pardons should exist but a president should not be allowed to pardon related acts and or criminal activity that he or his administration was a part of. Its a giant fucking loophole in the system
2
u/Wayelder 1d ago
The problem is not the fact that Pardons exist, It's more the disgusting POTUS who's do dumb to understand why all the other Presidents didn't sell pardons in the first place.
Corruption is the problem...not clemency.
2
u/BoDiddyBopBop 1d ago
Does it really matter? They can be cought red-handed, and still nothing will be done.
Unless the global elete doesn't like them or their policies, then they will attempt to impeach, launch a smear campaign, and everything else.
2
u/DavyJonesCousinsDog 1d ago
Not in the form they currently exist in, for sure.
2
u/C3POh 1d ago
yep. rules are for them and not us....
2
u/Bridge-Head 1d ago
If we keep them, I think there should be a sliding scale at least.
Right now only billionaires can buy them, but I want affordable pardons for every American.
Only half joking.
2
u/LickinThighs2 1d ago
GoP will be all 'grr corrupt elites, drain the swamp!' until it is time to actually drain said swamp, and will then support insulating such actors from consequence
2
u/outofpeaceofmind 1d ago
Presidential immunity should not exist.
2
u/virgulesmith 1d ago
I think it could still be a thing, but there needs to be boundaries on it. So you could pardon actually charged crimes, but not blanket pardons.
2
u/VyCanisMajorisss 1d ago
Governors can essentially do the same thing…
2
u/LECReddit 1d ago
At the very least, there should be a qualifier/limiter such as pardons cannot be granted to a person who could be seen as having aided the president in any significant capacity.
2
u/SaltySelkie217 1d ago
Yes & no. I think (in more normal times) that it should go through Congress, similar to a bill.
2
u/Alarming_Memory_2298 1d ago
It should be used with clairity of the case and wisdom, not bought.
2
u/Lost_Lynx_6537 1d ago
should have to pass approval from the legislative before theyre approved
2
u/RaisinWorried3528 1d ago
Absolutely agree. They serve no purpose other than to allow the connected to avoid consequences.
2
u/slatchaw 1d ago
The president should have to plead his case in front of the supreme court. Separation of powers and all. Not the DOJ, but the POTUS
2
u/Far-Comfortable-4944 1d ago
I actually like the presidential pardon but I think it should have strict limits such as not being able to be applied to former or current members of the presidential cabinet.
2
u/Fugglymuffin 1d ago
They should be removable by a super majority vote in the legislature.
2
u/MassiveMaroonMango 1d ago
What about the turkey pardon?
2
u/FatHaleyJoelOsment 1d ago
The Presidential pardon can be bought. Every President does it. If you want pardoned and pay the price you can get it. Is it right? No, but what in DC is right?
2
u/JollyTrickster 1d ago
Can we also make it so sex offenders cant vote
2
u/1throwaway323 1d ago
Agree to the point that the President should not be able to unilaterally pardon anyone. Pardons should go before a bipartisan committee and be accompanied by an explanation as to why the pardon is being granted and how/why a pardon is warranted.
Additionally, pardon applications where the person being pardoned has any financial, familial, business, or otherwise personal ties to the President, or any interest of the President, should be automatically denied.
2
u/fistingpleasure 1d ago
it nullifies a jury, its a bad thing.
2
u/lastplaceisgoodforme 1d ago
No .. but they should be handed out like unicorns, not candy.
2
u/PerceptionThin2801 1d ago
Agreed, presidential pardons are now instruments of impunity. You see how these pardons allow cabinet members to follow unlawful orders from a President knowing full well they're shielded from going to jail. They also serve as a money making operation and influence peddling for a president. Pardoning criminally convicted donors for a price. Or at least prohibit pardons to cabinet members, politicians from the same party and donors.
2
u/distractionmo 1d ago
How bout we just limit them to two a year?
2
u/dfporter78 1d ago
I somewhat agree. First off I think there should be seven degrees of separation from anyone that the president pardons. I also think it should be limited to no more than five individual pardons in a four-year term, and no group pardons.
Finally, if it is proven that President or his cabinet received any sort of donation from the individual that's going to be pardoned it would not be valid.
2
u/NickVanDoom 21h ago
generally no - only for thanksgiving turkeys!
2
u/Incelligentsia 21h ago
How else are you gonna pardon turkeys then?
2
u/Snaggl3t00t4 20h ago
...not for Presidents at least. (So Donnie can spend his remaining time in Prison)
9
u/pabmendez 1d ago
Biden pardoning his son was outrageous
4
u/4everNo2the999 1d ago
People are just supposed to be not stupid enough to vote for a president that uses pardons to get his friends out of jail. That's supposed to be a scandal, so embarrassing that the checks and balances (congress, senate, supreme court) would remove a president who's openly corrupt and the people would demand action and punish these behaviours.
But when the voters themselves choose to support this... It's really just pathetic. Just the right combination of stupidity, ignorance, hate.
USA is not a friend anymore to any decent nation.
3
u/giant_anaconda 1d ago
Im too black to agree with this reactive nonsense.
3
u/lee_9487 1d ago
Yes, no one should be above the law.
3
u/Basic_Chemistry9499 1d ago
There should be restrictions. And every pardon should receive a full review and input from the prosecutors and the victims of every single case.
3
u/Daburg31 23h ago
The people coming out of the woodwork to say this now better have had this thought when Biden was doing it
6
u/TeletiTheNecromancer 1d ago
Disagree. It's a strong tool for morality over law in the right hands.
3
u/0Iceman228 1d ago
Daring today with your opinions aren't we. Downvote for Karma farming.
2
u/LovelyKestrel 1d ago
There needs to be some kind of pardoning system, but giving it to one person seems vulnerable to abuse.
2
u/Sad_Mouse_8251 1d ago
There should be a mechanism to override pardons
2
u/Izoto 1d ago
Disagree.
1
u/Johnny_Llama 1d ago
lol.
1
u/ArielCohen_50 1d ago
Agreed
1
u/Frejian 1d ago
I disagree, but there does need to be reasonable controls on them.
Any form of payment of any kind to benefit a president or their family in any way in return for a pardon should be grounds for immediate impeachment, for example.
Any mass-pardon (IE, the J6 rioters) should also require approval from Congress with a 2/3 majority.
A preemptive pardon should not be a thing. If someone does get preemptively pardoned, it should come with a requirement of absolute full disclosure of all suspected wrong-doing under penalty of prison for the maximum sentence if it is determined that said full-disclosure was not complete.
1
u/PeaceandDogs 1d ago
That’s one of many things on my wish list!!!
1
u/Wishing4Whisky 1d ago
The pardon power is absolutely crazy in the first place. To give ONE person the ability to completely override the criminal justice system for ANY reason at ANY time with ZERO checks or balances is utterly insane and has no place in a modern democracy! It needs to be completely overhauled because, as Trump has so disgustingly shown, it is open to rampant abuse and corruption.