I would tread lightly when considering Constitutional amendments. Similarly, I about the creation of ANOTHER federal bureaucracy. I am not a fan of political pardons but the current approach may be the lesser evil.
If the present increasingly corrupt system is to be changed, an amendment is the only option. And I share your suspicion of more bureaucracy, but a commission of seven people isn't much of a bureaucracy. Its staff would be assembled from the government employees who already work at DOJ on pardons.
The main reason I'm so concerned about this is that these sorts of pardons are just toxic to the essential faith we have had, and need to have, in the justice system. Cynicism there will balloon into an all-purpose excuse for ignoring the law, i.e., more and more crime and more and more excuse-making for crime.
The concept is appealing, except I would not rely so heavily on various judicial officials or "retired" politicians to sit on the board. I have a law enforcement background myself, but I think it would have the taint of "deep state" to it. I would prefer that reasonable, thoughtful people from a variety of backgrounds make such recommendations. If needed the panel could access outside legal counsel if they considered it advisable.
Interesting proposal. I doubt the Supreme Court would allow any constraints on the president's pardon power, however. The power is stated in absolute terms in the Constitution. In Federalist Paper 74 Hamilton justifies a broad presidential pardon power, and specifically rejects any legislative say in the matter. Jim Dueholm
Correct about the need to end the absolute power presently set forth in the Constitution, which is why I said that part needs to be repealed. Also correct about keeping a legislative say out of it, which is why my proposal includes a Commission that would not have any members of Congress, but only former members of the executive and judicial branches.
P.S. Madison never met Bill Clinton, Barack, or Joe.
That was a nice response! I enjoy 5he articles and comments here. They provide food for thought.
Happy holidays to all.
I would tread lightly when considering Constitutional amendments. Similarly, I about the creation of ANOTHER federal bureaucracy. I am not a fan of political pardons but the current approach may be the lesser evil.
If the present increasingly corrupt system is to be changed, an amendment is the only option. And I share your suspicion of more bureaucracy, but a commission of seven people isn't much of a bureaucracy. Its staff would be assembled from the government employees who already work at DOJ on pardons.
The main reason I'm so concerned about this is that these sorts of pardons are just toxic to the essential faith we have had, and need to have, in the justice system. Cynicism there will balloon into an all-purpose excuse for ignoring the law, i.e., more and more crime and more and more excuse-making for crime.
I will sit with this for a time. I am not yet convinced.
I appreciate your subscription to Ringside and your willingness to consider my opinions.
The concept is appealing, except I would not rely so heavily on various judicial officials or "retired" politicians to sit on the board. I have a law enforcement background myself, but I think it would have the taint of "deep state" to it. I would prefer that reasonable, thoughtful people from a variety of backgrounds make such recommendations. If needed the panel could access outside legal counsel if they considered it advisable.
Interesting proposal. I doubt the Supreme Court would allow any constraints on the president's pardon power, however. The power is stated in absolute terms in the Constitution. In Federalist Paper 74 Hamilton justifies a broad presidential pardon power, and specifically rejects any legislative say in the matter. Jim Dueholm
Correct about the need to end the absolute power presently set forth in the Constitution, which is why I said that part needs to be repealed. Also correct about keeping a legislative say out of it, which is why my proposal includes a Commission that would not have any members of Congress, but only former members of the executive and judicial branches.
P.S. Madison never met Bill Clinton, Barack, or Joe.
You're right, Bill. I missed your recognition that your proposal required a constitutional amendment. Jim Dueholm