Usefulness of presidential pardons

[Patooka]

I hope I understand the "official" explanation for the Presidential pardon. Sometimes sentencing is too excessive. Sometimes pardons are given out to people who have served their sentence and have greatly contributed to the community afterwards. Perhaps an Amendment should be made disqualifying Presidential Pardons during an election year so no matter what, at least the voters can hold Presidents somewhat accountable for their pardons. It should at the very least eliminate most of abuse as they seem to occur in an election year.

Although I'm not naive. I've sure something like that will happen six weeks after I get a blowjob from a leprechaun. I suspect Biden will do something similar, but far smaller in magnitude in 2028, and former Trumptards (now called Crenshawcunts) will accuse him of being a dictator.

 

[ZiprHead]

I'm sorry the pardon profanes your beliefs.

Project ... much? I'm sorry that disallowing a corrupt President to act as a dictator offends your delicate sensibilities.
FWIW - I am definitely getting sick of winning. Hopefully January 6th can be the last time for a couple of years... if you contribute to the Trump Defense Fund you might be able to keep it going though.

I cant get over the fact that we have a self-professed Libertarian who supports dictatorial power.

 

[Elixir]

I cant get over the fact that we have a self-professed Libertarian who supports dictatorial power.

Libberpublican. Vacuous, yet malignant.

 

[TomC]

There's tons of stuff I'd love to see overhauled in D.C. But the process for doing so gives huge power to the Swamp critters to modify them for their personal or partisan purposes.
Tom

Maybe stop voting for the Party that wants to do away with democracy and representative government.

That's kinda vague. The Democrats are no angels. But when the TeaParty took over the GOP I became a straight ticket Democrat voter.
Tom

 

[Toni]

Pardons are a royal prerogative from an era when kings were considered to be divinely appointed and inspired; When the non-existence of forensic science, or even a police force, meant that miscarriage of justice was commonplace; And when most crimes were capital crimes.

In such a society, it's politically expedient for the king to advertise his divinity by granting a stay of execution to a felon who may well be innocent.

Sadly for the USA, their office of president was established at a time when kings still had this power, and (as nobody really knew how to run a country without a king at that point) the President of the USA is essentially an elected king.

The monarchies of Europe largely eliminated pardons as power devolved to democratic institutions. But the executive power in the US never had to go through that process of stripping power from the executive and passing it to an elected assembly, because they thought that having an elected holder of the executive powers, with an elected legislature with the power of impeachment, would be sufficient to prevent abuse of that otherwise insanely powerful office.

It's not. Nothing good comes of giving a single individual the authority to overrule the justice system. It's a direct and obvious invitation to corruption, and the present incumbent is only the worst, and far from the sole, abuser of this outdated relic of monarchical power.

Nope.

The US government was established as NOT a monarchy, specifically, although George Washington could have become king if he had chosen that. Because you are right, The United States was established during a time of monarchy worldwide. But we specifically chose a different path, and chose a path that invests its power in 3 branches of federal government in addition to state governments which, similarly, invest their power into three branches, plus the more local governance of counties, townships, cities, etc.

Basically, Australia became independent (to the extent that it is) because Britain decided it couldn't afford to remain an empire. Y'all were offered full independence in 1930 and it took you 11 years to decide to take up the offer. You still have a monarch.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I cant get over the fact that we have a self-professed Libertarian who supports dictatorial power.

If you understood the issues, you would understand my support for the pardon and how it isn't actually a dictatorial power. Instead it is a check and limit on government power.

The whole system of the US government is to make it hard for the government to act and easy to stop. We all know that a law is created by a bill passing one chamber, than the other chamber, than being signed by the president. What that means is that if either chamber refuses to pass the bill, then no matter how much the president wants that bill he will never get it. And if the legislature passes a bill the president doesn't want, with one stroke of the pen he can veto it. You no doubt consider the veto a dictatorial power. If the legislature and executive both agree to pass a bill into a law, the court can still overturn it erasing the law.

But then there are other checks on government power. The legislature can refuse to fund some government activity. The executive can decline to enforce something, but they have to do so in a round-about way.* If someone is actually convicted of breaking a law, that person has the ability to appeal, but if that person is acquitted the government has exceedingly limited grounds to try again. And even then, there is the power of the pardon as a capstone of limiting the government.

Every example just shown is one of the power of the government being limited. This reduces the power of the government, which Elixir finds to be blasphemous.

There are other examples as well, and they are more controversial but they do exist. A jury can say "we dislike the fugitive slave law so we refuse to convict someone who helped a fugitive slave." Jury nullification, with an anti-racist example, is sure to confound your attempts to say "but but but that's a racist thing." A prosecutor can decide that some case isn't worth filing charges over. Even a police officer can say "get that out of my sight before I have to arrest you for it." When I was in the military and was a dorm leader, I told someone "Look, if I can smell you smoking in your room so can the drill instructors. Just a friendly warning." Officially my job was to report him to the drill instructors. Did I do a bad thing by telling him to knock it off before he got in trouble?

With those examples we will get idiots saying "but that means they are making up the law." They are idiots because they can't tell the difference between addition and subtraction. "Making up a law" is when the officer says "Even though no bill was made into a law I am arresting you for doing X." Nullifying a law is the exact opposite in every way. Making up a law increases the power of the government. Nullifying a law decreases the power of the government.

Yes it is possible that various means of nullification can be abused. A prosecutor might refuse to file charges in a serious matter, such as when they decline to file charges against police who seriously need it, or under-charge so that the worst the officer gets is a slap on the wrist. This country suffers from a severe deficit of police accountability. Even so I would rather 10 guilty people go free than 1 innocent man get convicted. I know the concept of an innocent man is foreign to you, but it does exist.

If it had been up to me, the pardons would have gone to Assange, Snowden, and Manning. They deserve it far more than corrupt cronies. Then again, their crimes involve siding with the people against the government, and that sort of crime is not one politicians think ever deserves a pardon. The faithful would rather have them publicly burned at the stake for the heretics they are.

I know you didn't understand a single word of what I wrote, but the summary is that the pardon is the exact opposite of dictatorial power. I would rather risk that the government be limited for corrupt reasons than it not be limited at all.


* An example of round-about refusal to enforce by the executive is the executive saying "Here are our enforcement priorities, I don't want you working on lower priorities until the higher priorities are dealt with." Therefore solving a murder takes priority over busting someone for smoking a joint.

 

[Elixir]

Sadly for the USA ... the President of the USA is essentially an elected king.

We can cut off his head, then?

 

[Toni]

Sadly for the USA ... the President of the USA is essentially an elected king.

We can cut off his head, then?

Not even if bilby knew what he was talking about.

 

[bilby]

Pardons are a royal prerogative from an era when kings were considered to be divinely appointed and inspired; When the non-existence of forensic science, or even a police force, meant that miscarriage of justice was commonplace; And when most crimes were capital crimes.

In such a society, it's politically expedient for the king to advertise his divinity by granting a stay of execution to a felon who may well be innocent.

Sadly for the USA, their office of president was established at a time when kings still had this power, and (as nobody really knew how to run a country without a king at that point) the President of the USA is essentially an elected king.

The monarchies of Europe largely eliminated pardons as power devolved to democratic institutions. But the executive power in the US never had to go through that process of stripping power from the executive and passing it to an elected assembly, because they thought that having an elected holder of the executive powers, with an elected legislature with the power of impeachment, would be sufficient to prevent abuse of that otherwise insanely powerful office.

It's not. Nothing good comes of giving a single individual the authority to overrule the justice system. It's a direct and obvious invitation to corruption, and the present incumbent is only the worst, and far from the sole, abuser of this outdated relic of monarchical power.

Nope.

Er, Yep. As you yourself outline below:

The US government was established as NOT a monarchy, specifically, although George Washington could have become king if he had chosen that.

I know. Indeed, this fact is central to what I said in the post to which you are responding.

Because you are right, The United States was established during a time of monarchy worldwide. But we specifically chose a different path, and chose a path that invests its power in 3 branches of federal government in addition to state governments which, similarly, invest their power into three branches, plus the more local governance of counties, townships, cities, etc.

Indeed. So, exactly the same model as English Monarchy of the time; But with the king replaced by an elected president.

You seem determined to contradict me, by explaining how I am correct. Why does my statement of fact lead you to this knee jerk rejection, when your reasoning says that I am absolutely correct?

Basically, Australia became independent (to the extent that it is) because Britain decided it couldn't afford to remain an empire. Y'all were offered full independence in 1930 and it took you 11 years to decide to take up the offer. You still have a monarch.

Yes. What does this have to do with US Presidential authority and powers?

Oh, wait. This is blind patriotism. You genuinely think that me, as a foreigner, pointing out the flaws in your system of government is an attack on you, personally; And you imagine that I will feel similarly wounded by a counterattack on the flaws in the system under which I reside.

That's hilarious and sad in equal measure.

 

[bilby]

Sadly for the USA ... the President of the USA is essentially an elected king.

We can cut off his head, then?

Well the point of presidential elections is that it means you shouldn't have to.

But it's a fact most aristocrats and hoarders of wealth and power would like us to forget, that we can always cut off anybody's head.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Pardons are a royal prerogative from an era when kings were considered to be divinely appointed and inspired; When the non-existence of forensic science, or even a police force, meant that miscarriage of justice was commonplace; And when most crimes were capital crimes.

In such a society, it's politically expedient for the king to advertise his divinity by granting a stay of execution to a felon who may well be innocent.

Sadly for the USA, their office of president was established at a time when kings still had this power, and (as nobody really knew how to run a country without a king at that point) the President of the USA is essentially an elected king.

The monarchies of Europe largely eliminated pardons as power devolved to democratic institutions. But the executive power in the US never had to go through that process of stripping power from the executive and passing it to an elected assembly, because they thought that having an elected holder of the executive powers, with an elected legislature with the power of impeachment, would be sufficient to prevent abuse of that otherwise insanely powerful office.

It's not. Nothing good comes of giving a single individual the authority to overrule the justice system. It's a direct and obvious invitation to corruption, and the present incumbent is only the worst, and far from the sole, abuser of this outdated relic of monarchical power.

Nope.

The US government was established as NOT a monarchy, specifically, although George Washington could have become king if he had chosen that. Because you are right, The United States was established during a time of monarchy worldwide. But we specifically chose a different path, and chose a path that invests its power in 3 branches of federal government in addition to state governments which, similarly, invest their power into three branches, plus the more local governance of counties, townships, cities, etc.

Basically, Australia became independent (to the extent that it is) because Britain decided it couldn't afford to remain an empire. Y'all were offered full independence in 1930 and it took you 11 years to decide to take up the offer. You still have a monarch.

You are completely right. The people who wrote the Articles of Confederation and later the Constitution were opposed to the idea of dictators and kings. They chose to include what people around here believe is a dictatorial power, because they didn't see it as one. So the idiots who think the pardon is tyrannical are saying they know better than James Madison, in spite of all evidence being to the contrary.

It is their belief that anyone anywhere having the ability to check the government is tyranny and despotism, and on that glorious day when there are no longer any checks on the government then we will finally all be free.