Why should the President be able to pardon ANYONE?

Question

Let's face it, Bush shouldn't have pardoned Libby.

And I also agree that many of Clintons pardons were hypocritical or politically motivated.

But apart from this, why should the President of the United States be pardoning ANYONE? He's not a judge. Only the courts should be making these decisions. Juries make up their minds, and their decisions should only be changes through an appeal process that takes place in a court of law. Not by an elected official who owes many things to many people, and who would also have good reason to appease people. It just doesn't seem fair or just or in keeping with the American way.

So, would you support an ammendment that would take away the power to pardon from Presidents?

Bush did not pardon Libby, but he may has well have. He commuted the sentence. But should the POTUS be able to do anything like that?

Answer 1

Bush didn't pardon Libby.

I think you are going over the edge with your hate towards Bush.

I bet you think Libby was found guilty of leaking Valeria's name to the press which also is not true.

So give it a rest.

Answer 2

The reason why is the Constitution. A websearch of the topic yielded this quote:

"To the framers, the power to pardon, familiar as a power of the King of England, was necessary because the way the law was applied. In England, it was common for minor offenses to carry a sentence of death, with pardon by the King being the only way to avoid the punishment. Judges often applied a death sentence, having no choice, but at the same time applied for a Royal Pardon in the same breath. This is what Hamilton was referring to when he mentioned "necessary severity" and "unfortunate guilt."'

So in a sense, it is an archaic hold-over, but one that may be necessary. It gives the President to overturn a ruling that is so erroneous, that one man could apply justice when the system did not work.

Unfortunately, today we are a little bit beyond that. There are so many court cases and so many appeals that it is not realistic for the President to hear all of them on the basis of "fairness". Now it seems to be a tool for rewarding campaign contributions or questionable deeds.

However, I am not sure if I would support an amendment to the Constitution taking this power away. Amending the Constitution has become a big deal, and many people are trying to get laws on the books by extending the Constituition ad nauseum. Pardons may also be a necessary evil. I think that checks and balances, particularly with the press, should be a detriment to a President who abuses this. Let them skewer Bush if they think he abused his power.

Answer 3

Bush did not pardon Libby. He commuted his sentence. Big difference.

Why should we have courts? Police officers? Governments at all? Moms and Dads? Teachers? WHY? You tell me.

ADDED: If you want a fairly legit beef against Bush, talk about why he will NOT pardon the border patrol agents.

Answer 4

The framers put it in there because the King of England was notorious for over punishing people, and they didn't want the punishment to be too severe for the crime ~ they thought if there was no power to pardon that judges would have too much power. It was certainly not meant to be used how it's being used today. It's out of control, and should be regulated more than it is. That's way too much power for one man to have.

Answer 5

There is a lot you are ignorant of, in the political and security realm. Usually , just before a president gets out of office, he pardons certain people. To THINK is good ! Look past the "box"...

Answer 6

they shouldn't be allowed to pardon anyone. there are several things in the constitution that were from the old school. back in the day it would be appropriate for the president to be able to pardon people. i would support an amendment that would take away this right from presidents.

Answer 7

I don't mind the pardon power, because sometimes it can in handy.
Like keeping an innocent person off the electric chair long enough to get another trial.
This what the framers of our Constitution had in mind and I doubt if they thought any one would abuse it.
.

Answer 8

Well I wondered the same thing when Clinton pardoned all those criminals right before his term ended. What was it like 50 of them. one of course was a big campaign contributor.. or his wife was anyway if that really makes a difference.

Answer 9

It's one of the Checks that the Executive Branch has over the Judicial Branch. I honestly feel that revisions to the bipartisan system are more pressing at the moment, because having a sitting president be the leader of the majority party has been a disastrous amount of power for the executive branch to wield.

Answer 10

"Let's"..."Let's"..."Lets"...."Let's"....

sometimes you just have to laugh at the fact the left hasn't a clue about checks and balances...

the trolls earlier were circulating a "Yahoo Impeachment
Petition"...that would be great..signed by guys like:

Short Bus
Chimpy Mc Flightsuit
Larry Fine
ain'tnostooge