First, any and all Presidential pardons must be signed and publicized a minimum of 30 days before election day. This will help allow voters to decide on the worthiness of the candidate or party based on what is actually done, not what is deceivingly “promised” by a candidate or affiliated party during the election cycle.
Second, any and all Presidential pardons must be restricted to crimes that have been formally charged. Pardons cannot be for preemptive purposes. This will help retain the integrity of our political and justice systems by not allowing a party to knowingly commit crimes with the understanding that they will be preemptively pardoned by the outgoing President.
I like the first two points, but have a concern on the last.
If a person is prosecuted for for questionable reasons (i.e. the January 6th persecutions), a change of administration may want to wipe the slate clean - in those cases, they are not admitting guilt (again in the case of those in the January 6th dragnet, many were overcharged and made felonies for what at most was a misdemeanor), and the pardon should erase the prosecution and the sentence.
Michael, I’ve been debating the same in my mind. I wend back and read Article II and I am going to agree with you and delete that third point. Thanks for the feedback.
We are at a point in time where we really need to rethink how we want this country to function. We are pushing all laws, rules, and authority beyond their original intention as well as legal limits.
I disagree. If we had done this in response to Biden’s egregious use of pardons, the J6 political prisoners would have been either not pardoned at all or been made to wait another 30 days (at least) for relief. At least one of the J6 prisoners needed urgent lifesaving surgery the DOC was refusing him despite numerous doctors of both parties stating he desperately needed. 30 more days might have been too late. He left the DOC on a stretcher. The second part of this would have meant Johnson couldn’t pardon Nixon and Nixon did what every president does, but was such a bad criminal he got caught. It also might stop future presidents from protecting someone we know the next president will wrongly target. The pardon power was designed by the Founders to be unlimited and if we monkey with it because we’re upset about one president’s abuse of it, we’ll be cutting of our noses to spite our faces. No more reactionary, knee-jerk legislation please!
Not providing needed medical care to a prisoner is a completely different issue. Those who knowingly withhold needed medical care should be prosecuted and punished under current laws.
The Nixon pardon was total B.S. and should never have been done. It was orchestrated by Nixon to save his own skin. That is why Ford lost re-election.
If a President instructs individuals or agencies under his control or extended influence to go after a political opponent or others and it is against the law then they absolutely should not be protected by pardons.
Agreed about weaponized governmental agencies and we’re both entitled to our opinions about Nixon, but the major stumbling block is the Founder’s intent for the unlimited presidential pardon power. The Founders were highly educated and amazingly farsighted. They knew the Republic would have dishonorable presidents and still made the pardon an unchecked power. There’s more fleshed out arguments, both for and against, in the Federalist Papers if you’re interested. We shouldn’t monkey around for what’s worked for 250 years because one fool was a criminal. Changing it because we’re disgusted with one senile, old fart without even an adjacent relationship with honor will come back and bite us in the ass. I’m not psychic, but I’ll bet a situation will arise within our lifetimes where we’ll regret messing with this and Johnathon Turley could probably list a dozen reasons why screwing with what ain’t broke is the height of foolishness. I know I probably won’t change your mind, but perhaps the Founders reasoning can. If you get a chance, please research the whys of unlimited pardons. It’s worth your time. God bless!
Those sound reasonable and I agree wholeheartedly. I would add or clarify that Pardons must be for specific clearly stated crimes not open across the board any and all crimes B.S.
The Constitution gives this power to the President and it will take an amendment to change it.
IMHO everyone knew that @JoeBiden was a liar before the election and everyone should have known that he was going to pardon @hunterbiden and the entire @biden crime family.
It isn’t clear that the @biden blanket pardons for uncharged crimes are valid pardons. It likely will take a SCOTUS case to make that determination. But going back to my first paragraph there isn’t any restriction on pardons in the constitution.
Pardoning people before they are charged with anything is a farce. Offering a pardon means that he knows they committed crimes but were never charged for those crimes because they all benefitted in some way. Since the Biden adm never charged them (Schiff) with a crime, then the pardon should be null and void and allow the new administration to run with prosecuting their crimesl.
