US Presidential Pardons

[Starlight]

It's an interesting power. I wonder what was the reasoning of the Founding Fathers in creating it.

Offhand, it seems like they attempted to distribute power, rather than give it to an individual, so this seems very different.

I would think, in light of the Bill of Rights, and abuses still fresh in their mind from England, that they reserved the Presidential Pardon as a final check for somebody who was wronged by the system.

A trip to wikipedia tells me:

The pardon power was controversial from the outset; many Anti-Federalists remembered examples of royal abuses of the pardon power in Europe, and warned that the same would happen in the new republic. Alexander Hamilton defended the pardon power in The Federalist Papers, particularly in Federalist No. 74. In his final day in office, George Washington granted the first high-profile federal pardon to leaders of the Whiskey Rebellion.

Many pardons have been controversial. Critics argue that pardons have been used more often for the sake of political expediency than to correct judicial error.

Looking up Federalist No 74 and wading through his difficult English, tells me that:
1. Hamilton's main argument for the pardon power existing was that sometimes the criminal law is too harsh, and there needs to be a way to grant mercy on deserved occasions. Also, when a rebellion occurs, being able to offer a pardon can be key to negotiations.
2. He has convoluted and silly and unconvincing arguments for why it's better for a single person to have the pardon power rather than a group. He seems to rely on the fact that the President is going to be independent from any localized state squabble which he is pardoning.
3. He never touches on, or considers the question of, "what if the President uses the pardon power selfishly to help himself and his friends and allies?" nor considers possible abuses of the pardon power.
4. In his imagination he takes it for granted that the President is "a single man of prudence and good sense".

[Cow Poke]

A trip to wikipedia tells me:

The pardon power was controversial from the outset; many Anti-Federalists remembered examples of royal abuses of the pardon power in Europe, and warned that the same would happen in the new republic. Alexander Hamilton defended the pardon power in The Federalist Papers, particularly in Federalist No. 74. In his final day in office, George Washington granted the first high-profile federal pardon to leaders of the Whiskey Rebellion.

Many pardons have been controversial. Critics argue that pardons have been used more often for the sake of political expediency than to correct judicial error.

Looking up Federalist No 74 and wading through his difficult English, tells me that:
1. Hamilton's main argument for the pardon power existing was that sometimes the criminal law is too harsh, and there needs to be a way to grant mercy on deserved occasions. Also, when a rebellion occurs, being able to offer a pardon can be key to negotiations.
2. He has convoluted and silly and unconvincing arguments for why it's better for a single person to have the pardon power rather than a group. He seems to rely on the fact that the President is going to be independent from any localized state squabble which he is pardoning.
3. He never touches on, or considers the question of, "what if the President uses the pardon power selfishly to help himself and his friends and allies?" nor considers possible abuses of the pardon power.
4. In his imagination he takes it for granted that the President is "a single man of prudence and good sense".

Interesting....

As an aside, I love the curious case of the Presidential Pardon Refused....

United States v. Wilson, 32 U.S. 150 (1833), was a case in the United States in which the defendant, George Wilson, was convicted of robbing the US Mail in Pennsylvania and sentenced to death.[1] Due to his friends' influence, Wilson was pardoned by Andrew Jackson. Wilson, however, refused the pardon. The Supreme Court was thus asked to rule on the case.[1]

The decision was that if the prisoner does not accept the pardon, it is not in effect: "A pardon is a deed, to the validity of which delivery is essential, and delivery is not complete without acceptance. It may then be rejected by the person to whom it is tendered; and if it is rejected, we have discovered no power in this court to force it upon him." Therefore, Wilson was hanged.

[Terraceth]

Pretty much.

I don't have a problem with the general idea of it, and I think having the power around was good in some cases. My problem is the unilateral nature of it; there should be some kind of oversight on it, like maybe requiring half of congress to go along with it.

[Bill the Cat]

I don't have a problem with the general idea of it, and I think having the power around was good in some cases. My problem is the unilateral nature of it; there should be some kind of oversight on it, like maybe requiring half of congress to go along with it.

I was thinking having a panel of the VP and both majority and minority leading members of each house of Congress.

[Sparko]

Make them like wishes. Each President gets 3 of them per term. Use them wisely.

[Sea of red]

I was thinking having a panel of the VP and both majority and minority leading members of each house of Congress.

Give one pardon to the president, with something similar to the above for anything further.

[Cow Poke]

Give one pardon to the president, with something similar to the above for anything further.

In this case, that "one pardon" would not be allowed to be cashed in on himself.

[JimL]

The president has the power to pardon, but that can be cause for impeachment if it is determined to be an act of obstruction of justice.

[Sparko]

The president has the power to pardon, but that can be cause for impeachment if it is determined to be an act of obstruction of justice.

Your understanding of politics and the law are so wrong. It's hilarious.

[Bill the Cat]

The president has the power to pardon, but that can be cause for impeachment if it is determined to be an act of obstruction of justice.

Incorrect. Since it is a power granted by the Constitution to the POTUS, it can not be seen as a "high crime or misdemeanor".

The power to pardon is one of the least limited powers granted to the President in the Constitution. The only limits mentioned in the Constitution are that pardons are limited to offenses against the United States (i.e., not civil or state cases), and that they cannot affect an impeachment process.

[JimL]

Incorrect. Since it is a power granted by the Constitution to the POTUS, it can not be seen as a "high crime or misdemeanor".

The power to pardon is one of the least limited powers granted to the President in the Constitution. The only limits mentioned in the Constitution are that pardons are limited to offenses against the United States (i.e., not civil or state cases), and that they cannot affect an impeachment process.

Pardoning himself or his staff is an admission of guilt and thus is obstruction of justice, ergo grounds for impeachment should the House decide to do so.

[Bill the Cat]

Pardoning himself

The President can't pardon himself.

or his staff is an admission of guilt

That's neither here nor there. It is within his constitutional power to pardon anyone he chooses, except himself or someone who is being impeached.

and thus is obstruction of justice

100% false. Since the Presidential pardon is absolute, there would no longer be guilt, therefore no justice to obstruct.

ergo grounds for impeachment should the House decide to do so.

False. The House can't impeach anyone that has been pardoned.

[Cow Poke]

Pardoning himself or his staff is an admission of guilt and thus is obstruction of justice, ergo grounds for impeachment should the House decide to do so.

You can't be impeached for doing something legally within your power.

[Tassman]

The President can't pardon himself.

That’s open to dispute, it’s never been tested by the courts. The consensus seems to be that he cannot pardon himself.

That's neither here nor there. It is within his constitutional power to pardon anyone he chooses, except himself or someone who is being impeached.

But that won’t protect Trump himself. He may well pardon those complicit in the scandals, including, of course, his family, but also (as a way to keep them from cooperating with Mueller's investigation), Manafort, Flynn etc.

Nevertheless, Trump’s growing paranoia seems increasingly focused on his financial dealings as the Russia investigation gets closer to them...to the extent that he's already threatened special counsel Meuller about intruding into this area. And these financial dealings may prove to be his downfall.

[Leonhard]

You can't be impeached for doing something legally within your power.