In our Glorious Republic, the authority of the president to grant pardons is itself granted by the Constitution. It is granted in Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of that remarkable document, which article, section and clause as well provides that the president shall be the commander in chief of the army and navy of the United States. and also indicates that the president has what are normally referred to as "executive powers." The pardon power is simply stated. The president "shall have the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."
The pardon power is sometimes treated as silly, as in the case of traditional pardons issued to a single turkey each Thanksgiving. Harry Truman is shown exercising that power, above. Speaking as a lawyer who has practiced for decades, this power is one that has always concerned me. I have no idea when or why presidents began pardoning turkeys, but wish that they had been given power to pardon turkeys only. For example, the Constitution could be amended to say presidents "have the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States by turkeys."
Granted, the drafters of the Constitution likely didn't anticipate that a person as ignorant and corrupt as the current office holder would be elected, or even could be elected. Granted also that the power to pardon has been deemed to be one of the powers held by heads of state such as kings and emperors of the past. Even so, I find it hard to think of such a power, left unlimited as it seems to be in the Constitution (except in cases of impeachment), as providing for anything but corruption and favoritism.
Fortunately, the power has been tempered by custom and practice. Usually, the power is reserved until the end of a president's term of office, when presumably there would be fewer pockets to line, less political bills to pay. Possibly, the president may even by that time have learned something about the misuse of power and the benefits of being circumspect. Also, the Justice Department is usually consulted in the process. Consideration is given to whether the public welfare would be benefited or at least unharmed if a pardon was granted, whether the sentence imposed was severe, whether the person pardoned has expressed remorse, whether evidence indicates conviction was tainted in some manner, and such other aspects of a case as might occur to a reasonable person trying to make a reasonable decision.
Sadly, in this most recent case the pardoner is neither reasonable nor, it would seem, interested in making a reasonable decision. It seems that the president failed to consult with the Justice Department beyond asking it to drop charges (as it seems is his wont). It seems indeed that very little was considered beyond the fact that person pardoned was an avid fan of the president, held views similar to those held by him regarding immigration,, was elderly. and was the kind of person admired by those who admire and support the president.
Even a more competent or less corrupt president might be expected to favor pardoning friends, families and allies, however, and be tempted to use the pardon power to their benefit. The fact that kings and emperors of the past had such power would seem to me to be more a reason to withhold it than assign it to any one person, most kings and emperors having been less than wise. It would be best if there was no such power. But it's likely that this power will not be revoked by Constitutional amendment, and the best that can be expected is a limitation of the power.
If the drafters of the Constitution were unable to envision the mess we are in now, or predict that so sorry a person would one day hold the office of president, their lack of foresight is unfortunate but understandable. Men of the kind they were didn't consort with men of the kind we have now in office. We, though, cannot be excused if we expect anything better from such a man, who may be expected to pardon his friends and family if it is found that they engaged in criminal conduct, and especially to pardon himself should it prove expedient.
We may hope that no other such person will become president in the future, but to expect that will be the case is foolish. If we're capable of electing our current president, we're capable of electing most anyone. So, I think the public welfare would be served if the pardon power was expressly restricted to certain limited types of crime, that certain standards be met and that a president be required to consult with Congress before a pardon is granted.
The Executive Branch has become too powerful in various respects, especially when it comes to exercising war powers. Limitations on that power are needed if we must expect that in the future unworthy and incompetent folk will be elected president.
No comments:
Post a Comment