Less than 5 weeks. 5 weeks until we have a new administration, a new set of rules, a new lease on America. It's exciting and thrilling and hopeful and affirming. That said, there is less than 6 weeks for the current pResident to wreak havoc. Pardon me, you say? Why yes.

I am talking about the presidential power of the pardon. From Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution: I believe that the office of President is special, I believe that yes, constitutionally, that office should have certain powers that help the running of the USA. What I do not believe is that a president can pardon a person who has not yet been convicted of a crime.

In the most recent past, the power of presidential pardon has been fraught with controversy from President Ford to Bill Clinton. We hear a lot about Mark Rich, but what about Caspar Wienberger? GHW Bush Pardoned him for taking part in sending missiles to Iran in what we now know as Iran-Contra Affair. Weinberger was charged with lying to the independent counsel after he resigned in 1987. He and 6 others were pardoned by the first Bush 41, essentially stopping all investigation into Iran Contra. What is most interesting about this, is that it prevented the Bush 41 from testifying, because GHW Bush actually worked for Reagan when the Iran Contra affair happened... he was the Head of the CIA. That poses a small conflict of interest, doesn't it? Why of course it does. This is the biggest issue I have with a presidential pardon: The pre-emptive pardon.

I understand blanket pardons for people like, say, those who suceded in the Civil war, or the many who dodged the draft during Vietnam. Such gestures can prove to be cathartic to the healing of a divided nation. So I get it, I understand the power of the pardon.

Pardoning someone who has not even been charged with a crime? How can that be right? Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon for what reason exactly? He pardoned him for any crime he 'may have committed while in office. Perhaps that is my biggest issue with the presidential pardon. It isn't a partisan issue for me as so many others are, it is a fairness issue. I believe that if a president is to grant a pardon they should at a minimum 1) be charged with a crime, and 2) not have the ability to pardon anyone from within their own administration. I could try to add something about previous bosses, etc, but I think you get the point.

As we wait during these final few weeks of the 43rd Presidency of the United States of America, I believe that regardless of who is in office, it is time to contemplate a constitutional amendment to the pardon powers as described in our constitution. No one person should be able to pardon a person not even charged with a crime, and it is especially obscene to give one person the power to absolve himself of being criminally involved with a crime.

There is good news: Jerrold Nadler (D) NY, has introduced a bill to constitutionally amend the Pardon Power of the POTUS. It also asks that the POTUS should not issue pardons to senior members of his administration during the final 90 days of his term of office. I can get behind this.

I understand that it would require passage by by a two-thirds vote of both the Senate and the House and then be ratified by three-fourths of the states, but it seems to me that it would go a long way in removing the partisanship that can be woefully abused by the Commander in Chief. I do not care what letter is next to said person's name. I feel strongly about limiting the power of a pre-emptive pardon, ESPECIALLY if no one has been charged with a crime. Our constitution is lovely, but not perfect, and I believe that this is an issue that we as a nation need to look at, in the interest of the spirit of our constitution.

Limit the power of the Presidential pardon.

:peace: and
Raine