Would you back an amendment to limit the president's power to pardon?

[Cyrano]

Earlier, I asked whether the president could issue pardons for murder. The answer was, yes.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others have blood on their hands, not just from Iraq, but from the chain of torture chambers they've set up at Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, and places still unknown to us. By any rational definition, these men are murderers. Yet, the president's power to pardon them means they can never be brought to justice.

Would you be in favor of a constitutional amendment to limit the president's power to issue pardons for murder and/or, more broadly, crimes against humanity? (And keep in mind that limiting this power can be abused by the opposition. The name Vince Foster comes to mind.)

[shoelace414]

1. No.

but I would favor a limit on a "lame duck" pardon.

[williesgirl]

2. Yes - why does it exist anyway?

[Warpy]

3. I'd limit it to people who had been tried and convicted

and prevent the sort of pre emptive pardon that got the Nixon administraition off the hook.

That's what we're all afraid of with Stupid, isn't it?

I'd also eliminate it for constitutional crimes and crimes against humanity.

[bowens43]

4. No.

[freepotter]

5. There is a limit

The Constitution does contain a clause limiting a president's right to pardon.

[William769]

11. The only limit is the exception of Impeachment.

[freepotter]

16. That was the one

to which I was referring, and that one should remain, at the very least. That said, I don't believe the President should have any pardoning power. He's not a king, and it violates the separation of powers.

[William769]

17. How can it be a violation of the separation of powers

When the founding fathers wrote it? I don't think there can be any misinterpretation.

[William769]

6. No.

To me this would not pass the test for amending the Constitution.

[Cyrano]

14. What would be your criteria?

I believe it's been abused by every president since Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon. And I also believe it's been used mostly as a tool to pardon criminal/political offenses of presidential cronies.


(edited for clarity)

[William769]

15. My criteria would be

Granting rights or extending the rights of people so there can be no misinterpretation by the U.S. Supreme Court. I believe the founding fathers did a wonderful job at writing the document.

ON EDIT: The old saying is true Rank has it's privileges.

[Cyrano]

18. Sorry, but you lost me on this one.

I agree that the constitution is a superb document written by exceptional people who happened to come together at an exceptional moment in history.

But how would "Granting or extending the rights of the people" prevent presidential abuse of the right to pardon?

And what does the SCOTUS have to do with this? Especially today's supreme court that thinks our rights are whatever their political prejudices say they are. (This has always been true, but never more so than today.)

Perhaps I'm dense, but I fail to follow your reasoning.

(edited for spelling)

[William769]

20. Example slavery

Under our Constitution there should have been no slavery, but there was. Hence Amendment XIII. Thats what I mean about granting or extending right or Modern day I would use Gay rights.

The founding fathers gave that right to Presidents with only one stipulation. With all the things I would like to see amended, this would be at the bottom of the list.

[Karmakaze]

7. I would think that the only limit...

Should be a conflict of interest limit - that is, the President should not be able to pardon anyone directly connected to him or for whom a link such as a donation can be proved.

In other words don't limit it based on the crime, but who the criminal is.

That way the power to pardon doesnt become a political tool

[T Wolf]

8. Exactly!

And also include the "only-after-a-conviction" criterion.

[Philosoraptor]

9. I don't like the idea of presidential pardons.

It just seems like something kings do.

[AtomicKitten]

10. I'd back an amendment limiting his power to breathe.

[originalpckelly]

12. If the President interferes in a trial to protect himself...

that may be grounds for impeachment:

"At this point, I would like to juxtapose a few of the impeachment criteria with some of the actions the President has engaged in. Impeachment criteria: James Madison, from the Virginia ratification convention. 'If the President be connected in any suspicious manner with any person and there be grounds to believe that he will shelter him, he may be impeached.'"

--Barbara Jordan, Statement on the Articles of Impeachment
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/barbarajordanjudiciarystatement.htm

[northzax]

13. no, but I think in general practice

it should be limited to specific crimes, which should be detailed in the pardon letter. None of this blanket pardon stuff, say "I pardon Bob Smith for illegally using government funds to bankroll his house of ill repute" make it specific.

[theboss]

19. No

We need to stop acting like American history started in January of 2001.

[Cyrano]

21. No, not 2001. More like 1974, the year in which Ford pardoned Nixon.

Ever since then, (with the exception of Jimmy Carter, as far as I know), presidents have been handing out pardons like get-out-of-jail-free candy kisses.

Saint Ronnie pardoned everyone who said "Fuck the constitution" in the Iran/Contra scandal. And many of them came right back into power with George Sr. and Jr.

George Sr. pardoned everyone who said "Fuck the constitution," the most famous being Casper Weinberger.

Clinton pardoned many people we'd never heard of, many who were no doubt political cronies and contributers.

And is it really necessary for me to list the pardons Junior has sitting in his drawer? IMO, the presidential pardon power was not included in the constitution with the intention to let every thug in sight off the hook. And for the doubters, I'll give odds that Ken Lay and Jack Abramoff get pardons before King George leaves office.