Changes to The Constitution.

[Toni]

Why have Presidential Pardons at all? They're a pointless relic of the attempt by the authors of the US Constitution to ape the powers of European monarchies, and most if not all of those monarchies that have survived to this day, have long since removed their kings' power to pardon criminals.

What useful purpose do they serve? If a person was wrongly convicted, they need an appeal, not a pardon. And if they were rightly convicted, they need to do their time even if the President is a personal friend, or takes a personal interest that contradicts the judiciary.

It's very uncommon, and I believe until Trump, actually unheard of for a presidential pardon to be given to a personal friend of the POTUS (or Governor). Yes, Ford pardoned Nixon but that was political and not based on close personal relationship.

Unfortunately, sometimes people are wrongly convicted and occasionally, state legislators and the state justice system is stubborn about overturning convictions or commuting sentences. I'm not fond of pardons in most cases anyway but sometimes the criminal justice system gets it very wrong.

Of course it does, but how does the President know which cases are the ones they got wrong?

If a properly constituted court, with access to all of the lawfully admissible evidence, got it wrong, then how does the President know that they did? Is God whispering in his ear? (That's how the kings of old claimed that they knew a pardon was justified, though in fact it was all just a part of the eternal popularity contest that is required to maintain a grip on power).

Oh, those get vetted and presented very carefully before they get anywhere near the office of POTUS.

Probably the cases that stick in my mind the most are the cases that were commuted by President Obama. Here’s a link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lis...t=Of the acts of clemency,of the war on drugs.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Presidential pardon powers needs a big revision. No president can pardon himself. A pardon can be nullified by a vote of the Senate. Purely political pardons are forbidden.

How do you define "purely political" adequately??

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It gave a chance to undo miscarriges of justice. A check and balance on out of control justices and judges.

And out of control systems.

I'm thinking of a case I read about (no pardon involved): All the top management of a company had disappeared. All the IRS could find was one manager who had access to corporate monies for use in local things, he had nothing to do with taxes. But because he could have paid the IRS he was held responsible for not having done so (despite having no knowledge that they weren't forwarding withholding to the IRS like they were supposed to.) The judge even admitted it was totally unjust but the law was clear. He owed the IRS 7 figures, non-dischargeable.

Yeah, the law was written with good intent--keeps the CFO or the like from claiming they didn't know what was going on. But it also meant that people totally outside the loop also could be held liable.

I do question whether the authority should lie with one person, though. I'd like to see it replaced with a Board of Injustice--their job being to pardon people who fell through the cracks in the system and were treated unjustly. I believe Georgia already uses an approach something like this.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Why have Presidential Pardons at all? They're a pointless relic of the attempt by the authors of the US Constitution to ape the powers of European monarchies, and most if not all of those monarchies that have survived to this day, have long since removed their kings' power to pardon criminals.

What useful purpose do they serve? If a person was wrongly convicted, they need an appeal, not a pardon. And if they were rightly convicted, they need to do their time even if the President is a personal friend, or takes a personal interest that contradicts the judiciary.

Because they are a check on the government.

The US system is purposefully designed to make it hard to convict and easy to not convict. It takes two branches to create a law, and one branch to not refuse or unmake a law. If a law is broken, it takes a trial, with a civilian jury, to convict. A prosecutor may decline to press charges. A jury may refuse to convict if they don't like the law (such as happened with the fugitive slave act). A judge can give a slap on the wrist. The executive may commute or pardon. Only when the whole system works together can you actually get a conviction.

 

[ZiprHead]

I don't see how the pardon power has any effect on the rest of that, and certainly not an essential part.

 

[Shadowy Man]

It doesn’t seem like there is a purpose that the presidential pardon serves that a properly functioning, ethical, compassionate judiciary couldn’t.

But that’s a lot of conditional adjectives I’m throwing around there.

 

[Patooka]

The US system is purposefully designed to make it hard to convict and easy to not convict.

Well, this is fucking adorable. The country with the highest percentage of its citizens incarcerated apparently has a system that makes it difficult to convict. Completely checks out.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The US system is purposefully designed to make it hard to convict and easy to not convict.

Well, this is fucking adorable. The country with the highest percentage of its citizens incarcerated apparently has a system that makes it difficult to convict. Completely checks out.

Our system being broken doesn't invalidate the arrangement, thank you.

Nor does our system being broken mean we should break it further.

 

[Toni]

"Our system is broken" is such a lazy ass excuse for everything. Identify issues and propose solutions. Be as specific and detailed as you can. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of lazy ass whine by people who can't think for themselves and who just think the solution to everything is to burn the place down.

 

[Shadowy Man]

The US system is purposefully designed to make it hard to convict and easy to not convict.

Well, this is fucking adorable. The country with the highest percentage of its citizens incarcerated apparently has a system that makes it difficult to convict. Completely checks out.

That must mean an even higher percentage of its citizens are unconvicted criminals.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

"Our system is broken" is such a lazy ass excuse for everything. Identify issues and propose solutions. Be as specific and detailed as you can. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of lazy ass whine by people who can't think for themselves and who just think the solution to everything is to burn the place down.

"End the drug war" is not a synonym to "burn everything down". Nor is "the drug war is unconstitutional" synonymous to "get rid of the constitution".

 

[Toni]

"Our system is broken" is such a lazy ass excuse for everything. Identify issues and propose solutions. Be as specific and detailed as you can. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of lazy ass whine by people who can't think for themselves and who just think the solution to everything is to burn the place down.

"End the drug war" is not a synonym to "burn everything down". Nor is "the drug war is unconstitutional" synonymous to "get rid of the constitution".

Who said anything about 'end the drug war?'

I was very clear and used very small words. I'm sorry you cannot understand.

Maybe read some history and some civics or something.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

"Our system is broken" is such a lazy ass excuse for everything. Identify issues and propose solutions. Be as specific and detailed as you can. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of lazy ass whine by people who can't think for themselves and who just think the solution to everything is to burn the place down.

"End the drug war" is not a synonym to "burn everything down". Nor is "the drug war is unconstitutional" synonymous to "get rid of the constitution".

Who said anything about 'end the drug war?'

I was very clear and used very small words. I'm sorry you cannot understand.

Maybe read some history and some civics or something.

You are the one who said my position is "burn everything down". A cursory examination of my posts would reveal otherwise, including how I blame the drug war for a great many of our domestic woes. Sorry you fail to understand.

 

[Toni]

"Our system is broken" is such a lazy ass excuse for everything. Identify issues and propose solutions. Be as specific and detailed as you can. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of lazy ass whine by people who can't think for themselves and who just think the solution to everything is to burn the place down.

"End the drug war" is not a synonym to "burn everything down". Nor is "the drug war is unconstitutional" synonymous to "get rid of the constitution".

Who said anything about 'end the drug war?'

I was very clear and used very small words. I'm sorry you cannot understand.

Maybe read some history and some civics or something.

You are the one who said my position is "burn everything down". A cursory examination of my posts would reveal otherwise, including how I blame the drug war for a great many of our domestic woes. Sorry you fail to understand.

I quoted the post just prior to mine. You wrote "Our system is broken" without actually detailing what you think is wrong and why you think it is 'broken' rather than flawed and in need of some rethinking. It's a lazy way of pointing out an issue because it doesn't point out an issue it just says Waaaahhhh! It's broken!!!! Because you don't understand how (whatever it is you are complaining about) works or doesn't work. You just don't like something or it's too complicated so Waaaaahhhh! It's broken! Sounds like a 2 year old in need of lunch and a nap.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Waaaahhhh!

Calm down, please.

 

[bilby]

Why have Presidential Pardons at all? They're a pointless relic of the attempt by the authors of the US Constitution to ape the powers of European monarchies, and most if not all of those monarchies that have survived to this day, have long since removed their kings' power to pardon criminals.

What useful purpose do they serve? If a person was wrongly convicted, they need an appeal, not a pardon. And if they were rightly convicted, they need to do their time even if the President is a personal friend, or takes a personal interest that contradicts the judiciary.

Because they are a check on the government.

You've said some daft things in your time, but "The President should have these powers because they are a check on the government" really takes the cake.

If "the President" isn't a part of "the government", then who is?

 

[Politesse]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

A well regulated Militia seems to be the main problem with the 2nd. What it meant in 1791 is a lot different than it would mean to most people today. However, it's just going to be to hard to change anytime soon.

"Not regulated at all, neither a militia" does not seem like a logical answer however.

 

[Elixir]

You wrote "Our system is broken" without actually detailing what you think is wrong

Don’t be coy. Of course the system is broken. That’s what people are saying. Lots of people are saying that. Great people. They’re saying it’s broken.

and why you think it is 'broken'

[removed by moderator]

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Waaaahhhh!

Calm down, please.

So just got the vague posts and goading to go with then? Someone asked for clarity and you, as per the norm, didn't say a thing about what you actually believe.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Why have Presidential Pardons at all? They're a pointless relic of the attempt by the authors of the US Constitution to ape the powers of European monarchies, and most if not all of those monarchies that have survived to this day, have long since removed their kings' power to pardon criminals.

What useful purpose do they serve? If a person was wrongly convicted, they need an appeal, not a pardon. And if they were rightly convicted, they need to do their time even if the President is a personal friend, or takes a personal interest that contradicts the judiciary.

Because they are a check on the government.

You've said some daft things in your time, but "The President should have these powers because they are a check on the government" really takes the cake.

If "the President" isn't a part of "the government", then who is?

As in it is easier for one branch to block the other two, than it is for the other two to force their will on the third. It was designed that way on purpose.

If congress doesn't pass the bill in the first place, there is no law to impose on the people.
If congress does pass the bill, the president can veto it.
Congress has the power to overturn a veto, but it is harder than passing the original bill.
Then now that there is a law, a prosecutor can decline to file charges.
Now that there is a law, a jury might nullify.
Now that there is a law, a judge might declare the law unconstitutional.
If a court does convict, the executive may pardon or commute.

8 ways to block enforcement. Only when all parts work together does the law in question get enforced. If you don't want to understand, I can't help you.