• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pardons Run Amok?

We are going to need an awful lot of popcorn if we are going to open up a debate on which President pardoned (or wants to pardon) whoever.
 
Personally I believe there ought to be limits imposed on presidential pardons. It's gotten silly.
 
I don't have much issue with pardoning Stewart, her prosecution was probably not warranted in the first place. Pardoning her would be just. Blagojevich should remain in prison.
 
Personally I believe there ought to be limits imposed on presidential pardons. It's gotten silly.

I like the idea, might be difficult to achieve in practice (beyond just asking Government to restrict... itself.)
 
Here's my take, being a supporter and defender of the US Constitution.

The US Constitution grants plenary power in Article Two, Section 2, to the President by stating that "... he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."

When Obama granted pardons to people I thought unworthy I stated as much and then stated the above. I'm doing the exact same here. Don't allow it to deflect from what Trump is doing, but check out the link, it's an interesting list.

The only control we as a people have over this plenary power, is to ensure the person wielding it doesn't remain in office after the next general election. That didn't occur with Obama, because his supporters ignored such actions that they now vehemently and with great force of will take umbrage with Trump. That, the hypocrisy, is not surprising. What is good for the Democrat is often not good for the Republican in some eyes - you can also reverse the parties in that statement and it would be equally true.

Complain all we want, the man is exercising a power that no one can limit or overturn. What is being shown in these threads, however, is the true hypocrisy of those that remained silent or even defended Obama when he did the same or similar. For those that decried both? I tip my hat.
 
Sorry, but Blago and Stewart got what they deserved, and Blago is practically the poster child for corrupt politician.
 
Personally I believe there ought to be limits imposed on presidential pardons. It's gotten silly.

It's gotten silly because of silly and corrupt humans holding the office. The principle itself is sound IMO.

Recall that the first time the pardon was used, George Washington pardoned the men he had arrested himself in The Whiskey Rebellion. A good man in office delivers a bit of justice.

Subsequent men in the office have not met his standard. The provision allows and encourages the delivery of justice, but it requires a conscientious individual to make it work properly.
 
Pardons and clemency should be approved by congress and only issued if the person can be proven innocent, the laws have changed, can be shown that the conviction was corrupt, or that its the right thing to do. An investigation should be done to decide which case it would be. If it falls under the right thing to do, then it should be compared to historic pardons to see if it measures up.

A independent investigation should try to clear the pardons of any corruption purposes. If that investigation finds that it was corruption related (the pardons or crimes) then congress would void the pardon(s) altogether.
 
Here's my take, being a supporter and defender of the US Constitution.

The US Constitution grants plenary power in Article Two, Section 2, to the President by stating that "... he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."

When Obama granted pardons to people I thought unworthy I stated as much and then stated the above. I'm doing the exact same here. Don't allow it to deflect from what Trump is doing, but check out the link, it's an interesting list.

The only control we as a people have over this plenary power, is to ensure the person wielding it doesn't remain in office after the next general election. That didn't occur with Obama, because his supporters ignored such actions that they now vehemently and with great force of will take umbrage with Trump. That, the hypocrisy, is not surprising. What is good for the Democrat is often not good for the Republican in some eyes - you can also reverse the parties in that statement and it would be equally true.

Complain all we want, the man is exercising a power that no one can limit or overturn. What is being shown in these threads, however, is the true hypocrisy of those that remained silent or even defended Obama when he did the same or similar. For those that decried both? I tip my hat.

But they already Limited, he can only use the power to pardon for Federal crimes, for State crimes that is the Governors call. Opps.
 
Sorry, but Blago and Stewart got what they deserved, and Blago is practically the poster child for corrupt politician.

Unless it happened this morning, Blaggo and Martha have not been pardoned. So as yet ho harm no fowl.

But I see no reason for pardoning either. Martha is over and done and for the most part forgotten. Bloggo is the poster child for political corruption. So why? Throw out all the other answers and you end up with cash or favors as what's left.
 
Pardons and clemency should be approved by congress and only issued if the person can be proven innocent, the laws have changed, can be shown that the conviction was corrupt, or that its the right thing to do. An investigation should be done to decide which case it would be. If it falls under the right thing to do, then it should be compared to historic pardons to see if it measures up.

A independent investigation should try to clear the pardons of any corruption purposes. If that investigation finds that it was corruption related (the pardons or crimes) then congress would void the pardon(s) altogether.

Too bad you were not present to help write the US Constitution, eh?
 
Sorry, but Blago and Stewart got what they deserved, and Blago is practically the poster child for corrupt politician.

I wonder what would happen if Blago attempted to get his Chicago area seat in congress back or return as IL Gov.
 
Trump will abuse every single presidential power out there. They will have to rewrite the book after this clown leaves.
 
Personally I believe there ought to be limits imposed on presidential pardons. It's gotten silly.

Five pardons is silly?


That is hilarious, especially given that other Presidents have pardoned thousands.
 
I think a good use of the pardon system would be to alleviate some of the burden on the prison systems by a blanket relief for prisoners who have nearly completed their sentences. There's a scandal factor on the pardon system if the president pardons someone who later commits a crime, but a very broad action would actually mitigate this factor, even as the experience of getting a presidential pardon might still motivate people who would otherwise not desist from criminal activity to re-evaluate their life choices going forward. It would give them something lawfully positive to talk about which would render believable to others a stated intention on their part to go straight. That isn't a usual thing for people leaving prison to have.
 
Back
Top Bottom