Should the power to commute or Pardon be disallowed to anyone who was part a sitting President's cabinet?

Question

Wouldn't this assure honesty on the part of all future cabinets?

POLARIS,
I don't think our fore fathers ever envisioned Prseidential cabinets like we have today, I would like to merely close this one MAJOR loop hole, why would you object to office holders not only upholding the constitution but being bound to it?

*Presidential

captainobvious_lj
that was NOT my question, can you read?

This was not a right/left wing question, what the hell is wrong with you people?
I am an Independent.

Answer 1

Yes, it really should be. This was the next question I had planned on asking, but you beat me to it.

Nobody should be above the law of the land and every President as of late as proven that they are.

Answer 2

I think this is outrageous. All of this is down the line from Bush and he is involved in this scandal. Its getting one of your accomplices off the hook. It is immoral and should be illegal.
Bush should be arrested tried and convicted of to many things to mention. I can not believe more of the American people are not writing in to any one they can contact and tell them there job is on the line if this man is not impeached!!!
We are the ones who vote them in and we can vote them out!!!
Pardons are a part of history and I am not saying to take them away. It just seems like it should be wrong to Pardon some one who may very well be protecting you in an ongoing investigation.

Answer 3

What President Bush's commutation of Libby says: 'I'm the sentencer ... for my pal' It will be interesting to see if, after the President has made clear that he views the guidelines are "excessive" for one of his pals, others with sentencing power begin to give less respect to the guidelines when the fates of less connected defendants are in the balance

Answer 4

It couldn't hurt... However the right to pardon or commute was never meant to be used in the way it recently was. When not used to for the sole purpose of cronyism, it can be a good thing.

Answer 5

If you're speaking of Scooter Libby, this man is innocent.....Democrat Politicians have the Communist Party backing them, so don't think these slugs will ever tell you the truth. Nancy Pelosi, Dick Durbin, Ted Kennedy and other radicals on the left doesn't have your best interest at heart. When these slugs go and befriend are enemy knowing they are going into Iraq to killing our soldiers. These slugs should be the ones behind bars for treason. The Democrat Politicians are cowards, but they'll take the taxes payers money and lined there pockets with it.

Answer 6

February 18, 2001
My Reasons for the Pardons
By WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON
HAPPAQUA, N.Y. ? Because of the intense scrutiny and criticism of the pardons of Marc Rich and his partner Pincus Green and because legitimate concerns have been raised, I want to explain what I did and why.

First, I want to make some general comments about pardons and commutations of sentences. Article II of the Constitution gives the president broad and unreviewable power to grant "Reprieves and Pardons" for all offenses against the United States. The Supreme Court has ruled that the pardon power is granted "[t]o the [president] . . ., and it is granted without limit" (United States v. Klein). Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes declared that "[a] pardon . . . is . . . the determination of the ultimate authority that the public welfare will be better served by [the pardon] . . ." (Biddle v. Perovich). A president may conclude a pardon or commutation is warranted for several reasons: the desire to restore full citizenship rights, including voting, to people who have served their sentences and lived within the law since; a belief that a sentence was excessive or unjust; personal circumstances that warrant compassion; or other unique circumstances.

The exercise of executive clemency is inherently controversial. The reason the framers of our Constitution vested this broad power in the Executive Branch was to assure that the president would have the freedom to do what he deemed to be the right thing, regardless of how unpopular a decision might be. Some of the uses of the power have been extremely controversial, such as President Washington's pardons of leaders of the Whiskey Rebellion, President Harding's commutation of the sentence of Eugene Debs, President Nixon's commutation of the sentence of James Hoffa, President Ford's pardon of former President Nixon, President Carter's pardon of Vietnam War draft resisters, and President Bush's 1992 pardon of six Iran-contra defendants, including former Defense Secretary Weinberger, which assured the end of that investigation.

On Jan. 20, 2001, I granted 140 pardons and issued 36 commutations. During my presidency, I issued a total of approximately 450 pardons and commutations, compared to 406 issued by President Reagan during his two terms. During his four years, President Carter issued 566 pardons and commutations, while in the same length of time President Bush granted 77. President Ford issued 409 during the slightly more than two years he was president.

The vast majority of my Jan. 20 pardons and reprieves went to people who are not well known. Some had been sentenced pursuant to mandatory-sentencing drug laws, and I felt that they had served long enough, given the particular circumstances of the individual cases. Many of these were first-time nonviolent offenders with no previous criminal records; in some cases, codefendants had received significantly shorter sentences. At the attorney general's request, I commuted one death sentence because the defendant's principal accuser later changed his testimony, casting doubt on the defendant's guilt. In some cases, I granted pardons because I felt the individuals had been unfairly treated and punished pursuant to the Independent Counsel statute then in existence. The remainder of the pardons and commutations were granted for a wide variety of fact-based reasons, but the common denominator was that the cases, like that of Patricia Hearst, seemed to me deserving of executive clemency. Overwhelmingly, the pardons went to people who had been convicted and served their time, so the impact of the pardon was principally to restore the person's civil rights.

Answer 7

No. Being a cabinet member should make no difference.

Clinton clearly demonstrated pardons could be bought...at the right price.

Pardons should not be allowed, at the very least, they should be limited.

Answer 8

Yes it would, but never the less, it is the Presidential prerogative to pardon and/or commute the sentence of anyone they want.

No matter how distateful it may be.

Answer 9

Excellent point.
I feel this current issue is justified in Bill Clinton lying under oath etc. So I do see a definite habit forming in the oval office.

Answer 10

That's a really good point. I think that it should be disallowed. That would make them more accountable for their actions..