« The Search for an Enemy | Main | Were Crimes Committed? » Problem Solved05 Jul 2007 02:35 pm Jim Henley has the solution I've been looking for. Let the president keep the power to pardon, but: Amend the President’s pardon and commutation power to exclude executive-branch employees convicted of crimes carried out in the course of their professional duties. Vest the power to pardon those people in the Congress, maybe by a super-majority of the Senate - a kind of inverse impeachment. Sounds right to me. Comments (19)
It would have to exclude current and prior executive-branch employees. 
Democrats are vastly underestimating the ability of the Radical Right to force a Democratic Administration to prosecute its own members even when the Democrats control Congress. No sooner is President Hillary sworn in than the Republicans will start demanding "answers" to various imagined crimes, and the traditional media will turn the drumbeat into a firestorm. Democratic congressmen will start getting nervous, then caving, then demanding that Administration offices be "investigated" - and once that starts there will be convictions. Unless the next Democratic President is willing to go full frontal Unitary Executive then there is no way in the world he/she should give up any jot of the ability to pardon. Cranky
Wait until you see the whole sale, pre-indictment pardons granted around 1/19/09. My expectation is that after including Cheney in the pardons, Bush will resign, and President for a Day Cheney will pardon Bush.
Conflicts of interest problems regarding pardons don't exist only when the convicted are members of the executive branch. How about all pardons are nominated by the President and then passed by the Congress? That seems like the most sensible Constitutional reform to me.
i have floated the idea elsewhere that this sort of exception is already built into the Constitution as written, under the "except in Cases of Impeachment" clause. The President is already forbidden from giving pardons or reprieves (e.g. commutations) in "Cases of Impeachment". But that cannot simply mean that the President cannot pardon someone who has been impeached. It must mean: the President cannot pardon someone in such a way as to interfere with a Case of Impeachment. Libby knows information that is probably material to a case for the impeachment of Bush. That's exactly why Bush gave him the reprieve. And that's exactly why the reprieve is already not valid, under the Constitution as written: it falls under the "except in Cases of Impeachment" clause. The commutation should be challenged in court. Notice that this clause would do most of what Henley is suggesting, since impeachment is the remedy for the removal of many Exec. Branch officials.
In the alternative, we could forbid pardons between the day of a presidential election and the subsequent inauguration . . . and let the voters sort out the political consequences for all the other pardons.
To reiterate Eric the Political Hack's point, it's not as though the only people who are loyal to a given President and/or willing to carry out his dirty work are members of the Executive Branch. Sure, the concentration is higher, there, but so what? Make it conveniant for this President to funnel his dirty work through someone not on the payroll, and he'll do it. The Libby trial and this recent blow-up over the commutation seems like a distraction to me. Sure, this is one more scuzzy thing that Bush has done, but it's surely not the scuzziest thing, nor is Libby the major villain of our problems. Sending Libby to jail for 2.5 years might be emotionally satisfying, but it won't get us out of Iraq, it won't restore habeas corpus or other civil liberties, it won't close Guantanomo or stop torture. I'd like to see pundits like Matthew pay Libby the attention he deserves, and keep the focus on the bigger issues.
The proposal certainly is not the worst I have heard. But I think it better to do nothing. Whatever crimes Bush/Cheney & Co. committed will come to light. And the power of Congress to investigate has not been reduced by this quasi-pardon or whatever it is. Today many are angry about the matter. But people always get angry about pardons. If this doesn't interfere with the power of Congress, and I don't see that it has, then the fact that insiders often get good deals isn't big news. Or unique to this country. Where is this 'case of impeachment?' Er, there is none today, it is a hope. I think Bush is on safe ground.
Or we could get rid of the monarchical prerogative and focus our energies on making sure the justice system doesn't hand out excessive sentences in the first place -- ideally including a body like the special Scottish Court that's reopened the Lockerbie case, that has the power to revisit guilty verdicts even after the normal legal process has been exhausted if new evidence emerges. Really, what place do pardons & commutations have in "a government of laws, not men"?
Democrats are vastly underestimating the ability of the Radical Right to force a Democratic Administration to prosecute its own members even when the Democrats control Congress. No sooner is President Hillary sworn in than the Republicans will start demanding "answers" to various imagined crimes, and the traditional media will turn the drumbeat into a firestorm. Well, Hillary can help by not providing them so much fodder. She can't really criticize Bush too much on this with a straight face with Bill sitting in the same room. Which is why we must not nominate someone with SO MUCH BAGGAGE! Barack in '08!
That would be an improvement, MY, but it still doesn't address situations such as Mark Rich where the person pardoned wasn't a member of the executive. I like the idea of requiring Congressional consent to a pardon. If there's a legitimate reason to grant clemency, then the President should be able to convince 51 Senators to approve it. Giving the President alone pardon power with no check or override is too much power.
When the commutation hammer first came down the other day I had a thought similar to this--keep the pardon in place, but put some sort of conflict-of-interest restrictions on it. Doesn't seem like a bad idea. But then again, I'm rather sympathetic to lemuel pitkin's point of view as well--do we REALLY need pardon power in a constitutional democracy? There's gotta be a better way.
> Which is why we must not nominate someone Obama? The guy who bought the real estate from the Chicago mobster at below-market price? You must investigate! You must prosecute! You must convict! Cranky
Really, what place do pardons & commutations have in "a government of laws, not men"? Not speaking to the Libby case, but some of those laws have been applied unfairly by "men" (read: judges/prosecutors and juries) and some people have been railroaded by the justice system for all kinds of reasons including race, socio-economic class, political ambition, politics in general, expediency, etc... In those cases, pardons/commutations/reprieves are a last-resort check on various abuses and some built-in inequities (thinking of capital crime cases with poor defendants) of the criminal justice system.
It's hard to think of a "crime" that's within the course of someone's governmental employment. What kind of thing are you getting at? Is this the John Deutch case? If it is, why the fuck didn't the actual John Deutch case elicit this reaction?
...a kind of inverse impeachment. ...a kind of dumb statement. You wish to micromanage a constitutional power?? This power was designed and still is without review. Carping won't change that....and neither will you. Where was all of this 'outrage' when Clinton went nutz with the pardons of hundreds of convicted felons?
IE what I proposed in comments to the original post.
Man, I just want to put a boot through Fred Jones' ass. I really have no patience for this toxic combination of feigned outrage and stupidity anymore.
Comments closed July 19, 2007. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
But that restriction wouldn't apply to Scooter, because he worked for the Vice Presidential branch.
(PS, I'm not the same Dan that got some people pissed with the suburb comment.)
Posted by Dan | July 5, 2007 3:16 PM