Pardon reform proposal

[jon-nyc]

Obviously would require an amendment.

1. No pardons between a week before Election Day and inauguration.

2). Senate confirmation required

The first would stop unaccountability of last minute pardons. Or limit it at least. And the second would likely limit the issuance of pardons as favors to family members and donors.

What says you?

[George K]

We talked about an iteration of this a while ago.

Of course, it's a constitutional amendment, so it's a heavy lift. The current law gives plenary power. I see a problem with the second condition as becoming a political tool by the Senate. Look at today's confirmation process for cabinet posts. It would be worse, a lot worse, if approval of the Senate, if from the other party than the President, would be required.

First regulation? Fine.

[89th]

Well if you change the date to a week before, then that'll be when it happens... it just shifts when the President does it. I could see saying you can't do any after Election Day, but that gets into murky waters.

I'm sure I could Google the answer, but I'm not terribly sure why the Executive Branch has the power to pardon when it should be separate from the equally powerful Judicial Branch.

[Jolly]

Heard a radio conversation yesterday with a congress critter. The critter was most upset with the blanket, preemptive pardons.

Constitutional amendments are very hard to do, but one tailored to that specific type pardon might have an easier time.

[George K]

@89th said in Pardon reform proposal:

I'm not terribly sure why the Executive Branch has the power to pardon when it should be separate from the equally powerful Judicial Branch.

There are some interesting discussions going on regarding the Trump J6 pardons. A couple of judges are refusing to dismiss cases with prejudice, meaning, charges could be brought again.

[Jolly]

@George-K said in Pardon reform proposal:

@89th said in Pardon reform proposal:

I'm not terribly sure why the Executive Branch has the power to pardon when it should be separate from the equally powerful Judicial Branch.

There are some interesting discussions going on regarding the Trump J6 pardons. A couple of judges are refusing to dismiss cases with prejudice, meaning, charges could be brought again.

They can also piss up a rope. As it stands now, Biden pardon or Trump pardon, c'est fini.

[George K]

@Jolly said in Pardon reform proposal:

Biden pardon or Trump pardon, c'est fini.

Well, that was sort of the point of my post. If the charges are dismissed without prejudice, as this one judge wants to do, they can have another bite at the apple - according to her.

[Copper]

I like the president to have the power to pardon.

It may have been abused by both Biden and Trump.

I still like the president to have the power.

There are times when an individual can do the right thing when the bureaucracy can't.

[taiwan_girl]

I think it should be removed completely.

There seem to be more abuses than positives.

[Copper]

Mr. Nixon's pardon spared the country years of pain.

That pain would have outweighed any conviction.

[taiwan_girl]

@Copper said in Pardon reform proposal:

Mr. Nixon's pardon spared the country years of pain.

That pain would have outweighed any conviction.

That is a good point. Not quite sure how to reduce the power to also stop the abuse. I dont think that having Senate approval would work. Everything is too partisan right now in the US.

[George K]

@taiwan_girl said in Pardon reform proposal:

I think it should be removed completely.

There seem to be more abuses than positives.

100,000 draft dodgers would disagree.

[Mik]

I could see limiting it to nonviolent offences and also offenses for which there has been a conviction or possibly a current indictment. This blanket pardon for whatever you may or may not have done does not sit well with me.

In the case of Nixon an impeachment and indictment were forthcoming and for very specific acts. I think the blanket term is misused there.

[Doctor Phibes]

The problem is that there's no real accountability. How about changing the law so that the President can pardon who he likes, but he gets punched in the face (or if that's too violent for you snowflake types, a public wedgie) for each one that goes through?

[kluurs]

With a little time, I'm sure our group here at TNCR could come up with a satisfactory and reasonable solution. As for getting a constitutional amendment passed, I think we should do more than one - i.e. add the repeal of birthright citizenship. If there's anything else we need to do, toss it into the hopper.

[Copper]

@kluurs said in Pardon reform proposal:

TNCR could come up with a satisfactory and reasonable solution.

Get rid of all prisons

Have roving bands of vigilantes to keep the peace

The tncr way

[LuFins Dad]

@89th said in Pardon reform proposal:

Well if you change the date to a week before, then that'll be when it happens... it just shifts when the President does it. I could see saying you can't do any after Election Day, but that gets into murky waters.

Because on Election Day, it’s too late, there are few if any repercussions to the President/Candidate and Party. There’s effectively no difference if you just kept the same rule in place.

Whereas, if it’s a week prior, that puts the President and nominee in a far more precarious position. Do they wager that they are going to win and not issue the pardons? Or do they get worried that they might not win, start issuing pardons and risk angering the electorate?

I think both parties are at least a little annoyed with all of the pardons by both sides over the last few months, but there’s little to no electoral repercussions for 2 years, and that’s an eternity.

[89th]

@Copper said in Pardon reform proposal:

I still like the president to have the power.

There are times when an individual can do the right thing when the bureaucracy can't.

You know, it's better I guess to have the unlimited ability to pardon than to have the power to imprison. So I'll take it.

[Mik]

There is that.

[Horace]

If pardons didn't exist, it would be unthinkable to add them to the constitution. Weakening them is probably well and good.