Presidential Pardon Power

[Winstonm]

http://washingtonindependent.com/21313/21313

 

As we near the end of the Bush era, there is a growing concern that Bush will issue a Presidential pardon for himself and others for torture and war crimes.

 

It is a valid question, I think.

 

Attorney General Mukassey argues what I would argue - that if the actions were legal, as the Bush team claims - then there is no need for any pardons. As Mukassey is part of team Bush, what would it say about the potential of these possible crimes if a pardon were issued?

 

Should the President issue a pardon - and more importantly, can he or should he be allowed to issue blanket pardons to those who followed his orders?

[luke warm]

i don't think it matters (at least for bush and probably cheney) because if bush is ever charged, obamba would pardon him... but to answer your question, bush should be allowed the same pardon powers clinton had (imo)

[Winstonm]

i don't think it matters (at least for bush and probably cheney) because if bush is ever charged, obamba would pardon him... but to answer your question, bush should be allowed the same pardon powers clinton had (imo)

Jimmy,

 

I don't know if you had a chance to read the article, but it brought up an interesting and valid point. If a President can issue of blanket pardon to subordinates, how are the actions of the President curtailed?

 

In other words, you may not wish to charge the leader with a crime, but you can prevent his subordinates from carrying out criminal orders if they are subject to criminal procedures for having done so.

 

It is true that Carter issued a blanket pardon for draft evaders - is that precedent for blanket pardon of those who followed a President's orders?

 

Regardless, a pardon does not halt international tribunals or other coutries from prosecuting - hence my point - if the actions were legal then no pardon is necessary; if the actions were illegal, then the Presidential pardon is in essence a pardon of self.

[TimG]

As we near the end of the Bush era, there is a growing concern that Bush will issue a Presidential pardon for himself and others for torture and war crimes.

Aren't these international crimes for which a US Presidential pardon would have no consequence?

[pigpenz]

from what I saw on Hardball one night, if Bush pardons people for what they had done as far as potential war crimes for Gitmo and torture, it would be like admitting guilt. By stonewalling on the issue he puts the ball in the new administrations court. If they do a study it will take several years and most likely nothing will happen.

[Winstonm]

As we near the end of the Bush era, there is a growing concern that Bush will issue a Presidential pardon for himself and others for torture and war crimes.

Aren't these international crimes for which a US Presidential pardon would have no consequence?

That is what I understand. A pardon does not prevent another country or an international tribunal from prosecuting. It would only stop U.S. prosecution.

[Lobowolf]

If you can pardon yourself, why was Carter ever president?

[luke warm]

i don't think it matters (at least for bush and probably cheney) because if bush is ever charged, obamba would pardon him... but to answer your question, bush should be allowed the same pardon powers clinton had (imo)

Jimmy,

 

I don't know if you had a chance to read the article, but it brought up an interesting and valid point. If a President can issue of blanket pardon to subordinates, how are the actions of the President curtailed?

all i'm trying to point out is that we can't fall into the mindset that says we want to curtail the pardon powers of presidents based on who they are (or what political party they come from)... were you against the blanket pardon power clinton held? if you're saying that you think the presidential power to pardon needs to be constitutionally curtailed, i might agree with you... if you say *bush's* presidential power to pardon needs to be curtailed, i'd have to disagree

[Winstonm]

all i'm trying to point out is that we can't fall into the mindset that says we want to curtail the pardon powers of presidents based on who they are (or what political party they come from)... were you against the blanket pardon power clinton held? if you're saying that you think the presidential power to pardon needs to be constitutionally curtailed, i might agree with you... if you say *bush's* presidential power to pardon needs to be curtailed, i'd have to disagree

 

No, Jimmy, this has nothing to do with political leanings or personalities or idealogies - it would make no difference if Geo Washington or Abe Lincoln were in office.

 

It is a question about law and the Presidential pardon. My understanding is that in English law the monarch can never be guilty of a crime - but anyone who carries out a criminal act ordered by the monarch is held accountable. This process is a de facto boundary on the power of the monarch to act.

 

If a president can order an illegal act and then offer a blanket pardon for anyone who followed those orders, doesn't that mean he has absolute, supra-monarchal authority?

 

If the Queen of England can't get away with it, should an American president be able?

[jdonn]

i don't think it matters (at least for bush and probably cheney) because if bush is ever charged, obamba would pardon him... but to answer your question, bush should be allowed the same pardon powers clinton had (imo)

Jimmy,

 

I don't know if you had a chance to read the article, but it brought up an interesting and valid point. If a President can issue of blanket pardon to subordinates, how are the actions of the President curtailed?

all i'm trying to point out is that we can't fall into the mindset that says we want to curtail the pardon powers of presidents based on who they are (or what political party they come from)... were you against the blanket pardon power clinton held? if you're saying that you think the presidential power to pardon needs to be constitutionally curtailed, i might agree with you... if you say *bush's* presidential power to pardon needs to be curtailed, i'd have to disagree

I completely agree. Clinton shouldn't have been allowed to do it, and Bush shouldn't be allowed to do it. Why do they have this power anyway? (I know it's in the constitution but that's not what I'm asking...)

[han]

I also agree with luke warm and I think the presidential pardon powers should be limited.

[Winstonm]

I also agree with luke warm and I think the presidential pardon powers should be limited.

Interesting from you and jdonn and Jimmy - I hadn't really thought about totally limiting this power but I think you all have a good and valid point.

[helene_t]

Why do they have this power anyway? (I know it's in the constitution but that's not what I'm asking...)

My guess is that if they couldn't issue pardons to their friends they would intimidate the attorney general and judges to do it. Better to have overt power abuse than sneaky power abuse.

 

Can anyone come up with a better explanation?

[PassedOut]

Why do they have this power anyway? (I know it's in the constitution but that's not what I'm asking...)

My guess is that if they couldn't issue pardons to their friends they would intimidate the attorney general and judges to do it. Better to have overt power abuse than sneaky power abuse.

 

Can anyone come up with a better explanation?

The presidential power to pardon is part of the system of checks and balances in the US government. It permits the correction of injustices that cannot be rectified any other way.

 

Of course the presumption is that a president inclined to abuse the pardon power would never be elected in the first place.

[han]

I think there is a very good reason that you and I cannot easily sue the president while they are president. The president has more important things to do then defend themselves against whoever wants to sue them.

 

I think that the president should be accountable if they broke the law, but after their presidency ends. They shouldn't be allowed to pardon themselves or their support crew.

 

I don't know if there really is a case against Bush/Cheney. Perhaps more interesting is the situation in Italy.

[Winstonm]

I think there is a very good reason that you and I cannot easily sue the president while they are president. The president has more important things to do then defend themselves against whoever wants to sue them.

 

I think that the president should be accountable if they broke the law, but after their presidency ends. They shouldn't be allowed to pardon themselves or their support crew.

 

I don't know if there really is a case against Bush/Cheney. Perhaps more interesting is the situation in Italy.

Can you provide more details about Italy?

[jdonn]

Why do they have this power anyway? (I know it's in the constitution but that's not what I'm asking...)

My guess is that if they couldn't issue pardons to their friends they would intimidate the attorney general and judges to do it. Better to have overt power abuse than sneaky power abuse.

 

Can anyone come up with a better explanation?

The presidential power to pardon is part of the system of checks and balances in the US government. It permits the correction of injustices that cannot be rectified any other way.

So our system of checks and balances gives one person an absolute power that can in no way be challenged (meaning checked) or reversed (meaning balanced). Huh?

 

Of course the presumption is that a president inclined to abuse the pardon power would never be elected in the first place.

And of course that completely contradicts the entire premise, as if that presumption were to hold we would not be in need of a system of checks and balances.

[han]

It is not something I know a lot about but you could read a wikipedia article on their prime minister:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvio_Berlusconi

 

Particularly chapters 5 and 6.

[blackshoe]

Regarding the pardon power, there is information here.

[Al_U_Card]

I think there is a very good reason that you and I cannot easily sue the president while they are president. The president has more important things to do then defend themselves against whoever wants to sue them.

Pretty sure that is what impeachment is all about. Keeps them honest.....relatively speaking.

[kenrexford]

Wouldn't it be funny if Bush pardoned Obama right before leaving office, just in case Governorgate gets out of control? roflol

[luke warm]

Of course the presumption is that a president inclined to abuse the pardon power would never be elected in the first place.

And of course that completely contradicts the entire premise, as if that presumption were to hold we would not be in need of a system of checks and balances.

good point

[Winstonm]

From what I grasp, the pardon power checks the power of the courts, and impeachment is then supposed to be the check over the executive branch - but what happens when House Speaker Pelosi announces "impeachment is off the table"? Isn't that blatantly saying "we abigate our powers and responsiblities to be a check and balance"?

[jdonn]

From what I grasp, the pardon power checks the power of the courts, and impeachment is then supposed to be the check over the executive branch - but what happens when House Speaker Pelosi announces "impeachment is off the table"? Isn't that blatantly saying "we abigate our powers and responsiblities to be a check and balance"?

Of course it doesn't really matter since presidents seem to be in the habit of granting hundreds of pardons on the way out the door.

[helene_t]

So our system of checks and balances gives one person an absolute power that can in no way be challenged (meaning checked) or reversed (meaning balanced). Huh?

Yeah, I was wondering if Lynn was joking. This widespread belief in the infallibility of a particular individual (the Pope, Mohammad, Elvis Presley, Einstein, or the Inca King) is outright scary. It ought to be obvious that the weakest link in the government is the one which concentrates all power in a single person. It is easy to imagine that a corrupt, evil moron gets elected to president. It is less likely that hundred corrupt, evil morons get elected to parliament.

 

But there actually is a check on the U.S. president. Unlike European kings, he could in principle be dismissed if for example he has sex with a White House trainee.