Pardon Me Mr. President

Time to Reconsider Presidential Pardons

Isn't it time for the whole idea of Presidential pardons to be re-examined? The alleged request from Matt Gaetz for a blanket pardon from Donald Trump is just the most recent example of the potential abuse of such a tradition. Thankfully it was not granted. Look at Trump's other pardons for more examples. 

His approach to pardons resembled his tossing MAGA hats out to a crowd. He pardoned friends and allies. Thankfully he did not attempt one for himself. He is not the first President to abuse this power - far from it.

There is certainly a place for such a last chance option in the system. The problem is giving this absolute power to one person. It was intended to right what were generally accepted as injustices, especially when a party had served a substantial percentage of their sentence. The idea is to give an otherwise deserving or remorseful person a second chance at some form of normal life again, when many years have already been lost.

So what constitutes an abuse of this power by a President? Here are some examples in my opinion. Pardons for:

1. Himself/herself
2. Members of his/her own family (to be defined) 
3. Cases in which he/she or any party, group, company, or association stands to benefit financially or in any other material way from the pardon
4. Cases where it can be proven that the President already received a benefit as outlined in 2, above.
5. Cases which have not yet been tried in a court of law. 

Here are some recommendations, even if changes to the Constitution are required:

1. The pardon is invalid and can be reversed when it is proven that a President only agreed to the pardon because of physical threat or duress
2. At present a list is compiled for the President's consideration which would remain. The President may add to or remove from the list. 
3. This list must then be reviewed by a small, special committee of current congressional representatives or senators from any official party. There must be at least one member from each party and its representatives are appointed by Congress. There would be an even number of people on this committee and a simple majority would be needed. The President could only vote to break a tie. 
4. The granting of such pardons would occur every two years. There would be a maximum number on each list (10? 20?). This allows those who might have been waiting a long time more opportunities for consideration
5. A list of the most egregious crimes (updateable) would not ever qualify for pardons. This list would have to pass in both Congress and the Senate.
6. If for any reason a President has to be replaced then any existing list must remain in place before the new President acts on any other new pardon list.
7. If the pardon involves an entire class of people such as draft dodgers then it would only count as one pardon
8. A guilty verdict must have been found before any pardon can be granted. Accusations do not qualify

These changes will not be easy. At present the process can make a mockery out of an otherwise decent system of government and justice.

Pardon me for bringing up the issue. I'm sure many others brought up after DJT's long list. Some of his predecessors' lists were shorter but just as wrong.

#thebrewsterblock