Liberals don't like Bush's pardons, cons didn't like Clinton's, time for a change?

Question

Why not amend the constitution to remove the pardon power from the President and give it to a special panel nominated by the President, but confirmed by the House? The majority party would get one extra seat, no matter the actual number split.

I think this would alieviate most of the problems with the presidential pardons, like covering up administration crimes, while still leaving a ray of hope for the unjustly convicted.

Bushleager, could you expand on why you think this is a bad idea?

Pete, I said pardons, but I mean the entire commutation pardon process.

I understand that amendments are difficult to pass, but frankly I think this would be worth it. To answer one question, the board would only look at federal convictions, and the current nomination process used by the justice department could probably still be used with no changes.

Answer 1

Great idea but it will never work. When it takes a majority to get along who have special interests and agenda here... a new bill would never pass. It took over 10 yrs to fight for campaign reform bills. If they work is yet to be seen.
Presidential privilege. You give that up you lose something worse elsewhere. Your idea I stand behind. If we could place items like this on a ballot and not left to the bozo's in office...
Term limits! Or like voting in a pay increase for Senators and the rest on the hill. LOL.
It's Time. I changed from Republican to Independent. Sick of the old boy politics. BI partisan here.

Answer 2

It's an interesting idea, but amending a consitution takes some work. I'm also not sure whether anyone would want to go through the ordeal of being confirmed merely to sit on a committee that has such a limited purpose. In the end, there isn't any way you can remove political self-interest from the pardons process, anyway, I believe.

Answer 3

THANK YOU! It's nice to see someone understands that this isn't a partisan issue, and that there have been abuses by both sides. Your plan really interests me, and with a bipartisan composition on the 'board' it would keep politics out of what should be a simple decision (was this guy wrongly convicted?). The only thing you didn't address is who is going to decide which people they look at for pardons? Will it consist of (theoretically) every inmate in the country? Or would we sort of keep the President's Constitutional power by allowing him to pick the names that they have hearings on? All in all though, it sounds like a good plan.

Answer 4

As far as I know, Pres. Bush hasn't pardoned anyone. FYI, Scooter Libby got his sentence commuted, and the appeals process hasn't even started. On the other hand, Slick Willie gave out 127 pardons on his last day in office, most for pretty shady reasons. So I really like the pardon power for presidents and governors - it gives us insight into their true character.

Answer 5

Ammendments to the Constitution are difficult, costly and time consuming. Both houses of Congress have to approve. The President has to approve. two-thirds of the states have to approve.
Pardons are a prerogative of Presidents and governors. There is no reason to change that.

Answer 6

not sure but pardons, commuted sentences involving anyone in your OWN administration should be OUT, it's an excuse to engage in wrongdoing otherwise

Answer 7

I like it! Pardons should be limited to the unjustly convicted.

Answer 8

That would be the obvious conclusion, but too many Americans are drinking the Kool Aid of a political affiliation to be that smart.

Answer 9

after Taco Bill did his thing,I think we should give Mr Bush an equal chance to let his buds lose,dont you?..maybe change it after the hilldemon/osama ticket gets in office before she can let Reno off for Waco and Ruby Ridge

Answer 10

You just earned a star and thanks for that post.