"...the only Constitutional Amendment we should back

at this point in time".  

Ok, this is lifebouy time imo, and here's my toss - without so much as an argument for it.  Just laying it out there. If it fits above the flip, that's good enough for now.

Amendment 28 (or whatever)

"Section 1. The prerogative of the President to issue Pardons notwithstanding, no Pardon or Commutation shall be considered valid if issued to reprieve a current or former member of the President's Administration, or a current or former offical in the President's political party.

Section 2. Any Pardon shall be valid only insofar as it applies to a specific conviction against an individual obtained in a Court of the United States."

It would be a lot of work.

•  thrash away nt

  by nailbender on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 10:59:59 PM PDT

•  With you on part 2

  In fact, in my reading of the Constitution, it is redundant.  I think preemptive pardons, i.e. prior to a conviction or not pertaining to a conviction already handed down in court, are unconstitutional.

  Why?  Because of this:

  No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States

  And what is a title of nobility, if not an official sanction that says that the law as written does not apply to you?

  A pardon is only a pardon if the President issues it after a conviction and applies it to that specific conviction.  Otherwise, it's a usupration of the law, a crime of office, and therefore an impeachable act.  A President can promise a pardon prior to conviction all he wants.  That's just speech.  (Same deal with signing statements.)  It is the act that is of consequence.

  Ford's pardon of Nixon should've been laughed out of existence.  But no, we must have our royalty...  So maybe the clarity of an amendment is necessary, in our current craven talking-point political discourse, when torture doesn't mean what it means.

  I think parrt 1 is dangerous.  Presidential pardon power is a valuable last resort.  Better that ten guilty go free than one innocent go to jail, and all that.

  by Simplify on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 11:36:15 PM PDT

  •  That is a preposterous argument

    UK has titles of nobility, and yet the law applies equally to the noble and the commoner.  Preemptive pardons are not a title of nobility, but an act of grace.

    by Drgrishka1 on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 11:40:00 PM PDT

    •  The Title of Nobility in George III's time

      came from the 'divine right of kings' that held the king above the law - there  was no redress for any wrong the king did, from trashing one's fields to theft of Habeas Corpus (though that got modified by the Magna Carta).  Anyway, the 'nobility'  has changed in popular usage, but I believe (IANAL) that it remains legally.

      by sailmaker on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 11:50:25 PM PDT

      •  That is actually not true

        Precisely because the "divine right of Kings" by George III's time was no longer the governing principle, the colonies rebelled.  The Declaration of Independence sets out grievances over violation of RIGHTS of Englishmen.  If the Divine Right were a governing principle, Englishmen would have no rights, but just the King's grace.

        In any event, the Nobility Clause has never been understood, either by framers, or subsequently as any sort of limit on the pardon power.

        by Drgrishka1 on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 11:57:24 PM PDT

        •  Well, that's the way >I< understand it

          so foo.  High time we started creating reality anyway.  Studying it, judiciously, as we will, has proven a sucker's game.

          Besides, what fun is it being nobility if you hafta slum with the serfs in court?  Laaaaame.

          by Simplify on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 12:08:47 AM PDT

      •  The Magna Carta was long before George III

        in 1215.

        by real democracy on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 01:26:58 AM PDT

    •  she's referring to the mysterious 13th Amendment

      Which was passed by the requisite number of states, but which was never codified.

      That blockquote is pretty close to the original text of the amendment, if memory serves.

      by nailbender on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 01:19:01 AM PDT

      •  No. She is referring to Art. I, Sec. 9

        No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

        The Titles of Nobility Amendment reads:

        If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain, any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.

        by Drgrishka1 on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 09:12:16 AM PDT

        •  thanks for correcting me

          sloppy.  Thanks.

          by nailbender on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 09:27:40 AM PDT

•  This is something 'we' would like to see, but

  not gonna happen because every branch of government is currently in such disorder and is potentially so culpable itself, none will move against the other IMO.

  I think (an outspoken demand for) impeachment  as well as any Constitutional amendments or constitutional convention will have to come from the people, using a united front and a very strong voice.

  by dus7 on Mon Oct 29, 2007 at 11:50:57 PM PDT

  •  I'd rather rein in a wild horse

    than push a Donkey.  I have had my fill of donkey pushing.

    by nailbender on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 01:20:29 AM PDT

•  I have to vehemently disagree

  I do not disagree that the power to pardon needs to be amended, but I do seriously disagree with the idea that this would be the only amendment we should back.

  Rather than amending the law on pardons in such a way as to leave it to the courts later to decide if a President has misused the power (and under what conditions and by what process would such an incident be referred to the court?), I recommend something more like this:

  The President shall have the power to recommend a pardon or reprieve which shall be reviewed by the Federal Board of Pardons, which in the case of a Presidential Pardon shall first determine whether there is a conflict of interest between the president and the party to be pardoned.  If it determines there is a conflict of interest, then the Board of Pardons shall determine the merits of the pardon.  If it does not find a conflict of interest, the presidential Pardon shall stand.

  by real democracy on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 01:37:10 AM PDT

  •  It is the only one that can punch through at this

    point in time.  It isn't about criticality (though this one is critical in deep moral sense) but about now much we can realistically do, given the intra-party schism that is occurring.

    As to your proposal, let me ask you, what is ambigous about my language?  I wrote it as unambigously as possible, and I am here to tell you that the intent is exactly what it's language clearly says it is.

    Yes, by all means, let's get an appointed panel so whoever wins in 08 can distribute a couple plums to folks who listen to the same radio stations he does.

    by nailbender on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 10:03:04 PM PDT

    •  very close

      I guess the ambiguity is in the phrase "shall be considered valid if issued."  That is, it would seem to say that a President may in fact issue such a pardon or commutation, but some other authority shall have the power to render that pardon invalid, presumably a court.  However, if such a potentially invalid pardon is issued, who shall raise the question of its validity for a court to consider?  A prosecutor whose job is "at the pleasure of the president?"  Congress?

      I like the idea of limiting the presidential power to pardon, but I just think the limitation on it needs to come up front.  That is, I think that some barrier should exist between the president and the eventual pardon.  And I'm not trying to attack your idea, but rather work with you to improve it.  And my ideas, both in my previous comment, and in this one, are not intended to be the final answer.  They are merely suggestions that we can hash out together, along with anyone else who wants to contribute.  Neither of us is going to make any changes unilaterally.  Only be shaping our ideas to make them more broadly accepted will anything make it beyond this forum.

      My suggestion of a Board to serve in this role did not include any mention of how that Board would be chosen, but I certainly would not advocate that it be appointed by the president.  Certainly, I gave no clear indication of my position on that, so I accept the blame for that misunderstanding.  However, since the subject is now arisen, I will say that there are a wide range of possible methods for selecting such a Board:

      1. One member each appointed by the leaders of all parties with seats in Congress (so, if there are four parties represented in the House and three in the Senate -- and I know that's a pipe dream, too -- then the Board might have seven members);

      2. The House and Senate each choose three members by ranked choice voting, and three others are selected randomly from a field of candidates pre-screened based on specific criteria indicating at least a minimal understanding of the legal issues that such a board will encounter;

      3. All members could be randomly selected pre-screened candidates;

      4. The panel might be appointed by the highest ranking career (not elected or appointed) officials in the various departments, or some subset thereof;

      5.  A lottery could be used to select a random field of one hundred electors who would then interview candidates and hire them for a definite contract period.

      I'm sure several other methods could be devised for creating a panel without a monolithic mindset.  However, I think we also need to revise the entire executive branch toward a similar goal: diversity of opinion and shared power in every decision-making body rather than having the entire cadre of chief officers and many of their deputies being appointed by one person.  I welcome further discussion.

      by real democracy on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 01:20:10 AM PDT

  •  as to your suggestion that we extend the boundary

    to include your very vague "conflict of interest" clause: there is no cut-and-dry there.  Reread mine again and tell me what is uncertain about it and then comare that to the same test in your text.

    Yours extends uncertainty and sets up another potential magnet for corruption.

    Besides, when Clinton pardoned the Rich guy, that was a good thing.  It gave us a little "Clinton benchmark."      What's wrong with Presidents leaving something smelly for us to remember them by?

    by nailbender on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 10:11:12 PM PDT