amend Constitution to ban conflict-of-interest pardons?

Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution says, "[The President] shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

I propose amending the Constitution to ban pardons in which the President of the United States has a conflict of interest. The President should not be able to pardon his co-conspirators, like Caspar Weinberger (Bush 41 pardoned Weinberger for his role in Iran-Contra) or "Scooter" Libby, and s/he should not be able to pardon major campaign contributors or "friends of the party" like Marc Rich and George Steinbrenner (pardoned by Reagan for illegal campaign contributions to Nixon).

See the amendment after the jump.

Proposed Amendment 28:

Section 1. No pardon shall be granted in cases where the President has a conflict of interest with either the crime or the individual. Conflict of interest pardons granted before ratification of this amendment shall be invalidated if the statute of limitations has not expired.

Section 2. No pardon shall be granted between election day and inauguration except for individuals who have completed incarceration and paid fines as directed by the courts.

Section 3. In cases where the President has granted a pardon, a prosecutor with jurisdiction may apply to the federal courts for the pardon to be invalidated based on the conflict of interest. In cases of impeachment the House of Representatives shall apply to the Supreme Court

In my discussions about an amendment banning conflict-of-interest pardons politburo suggested banning late term pardons and my father made a distinction between pardons for people who have been punished and those who have not been tried yet.

Outside of the specific issue of "Scooter" Libby, it's just wrong for the President to sell pardons or to pardon his co-conspirators in criminal activity.

•  If you think the Constitution should be amended

  to ban conflict-of-interest pardons, please recommend this diary.

  by Carl Nyberg on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 09:56:40 AM PDT

  •  nice thought

    that's not even close to possible ..

    by Stampy51 on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 09:58:40 AM PDT

  •  Waste of Time

    ammending the constitution is a mammoth process that would never happen in this case.

    Besides, who would determine conflict of interest? How would this be proven to be a conflict of interest to Bush?

    by Mr X on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:00:57 AM PDT

    •  prosecutors would have to go to court

      and the courts would have to decide whether there was a conflict of interest in the particular case.

      I suppose waking up in the morning is a waste of time too, after all, we're all going to die.

      by Carl Nyberg on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:02:34 AM PDT

      •  i'm with you

        what's the point??

        by Stampy51 on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:06:21 AM PDT

  •  simpler change

    just make pardons subject to Senate approval.

    by aztecraingod on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:01:22 AM PDT

    •  worth considering

      I suppose the minority could filibuster bad pardons. But if the filibuster was killed letting the majority of Senators ratify a pardon doesn't really fix the problem.

      by Carl Nyberg on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:05:14 AM PDT

      •  It would make it harder to get, though.

        If it had to go through Congress it would take time and not be an easy out for those who should at least do a little time.

        by Owllwoman on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:08:28 AM PDT

  •  IMHO EO's need to be regulated first

    yes they are used by both parties but dumbaya has totally abused the process, and I think there needs to be a check on them of some kind. Also 'signing statements' need to be banned out right as far as i am concerned. Then deal with pardons.

    by tony the American Mutt on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:29:15 AM PDT

    •  propose some specific language

      and see if people can shoot holes in it.

      I agree signing statements are problematic, but it seems like Congress and the courts have power to deal with them already. An amendment isn't needed.

      Executive orders are needed to implement laws, right? How do you sort routine executive orders from ones that overreach the President's authority?

      by Carl Nyberg on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:38:09 AM PDT

•  I only like section 2.

  I don't care much for the conflict of interest idea...it's undefined and would rule out the justice and mercy of the pardons for a class of people, which I don't think helps.

  However, I do like the idea of getting all the pardons done in time to punish the president's party at the polls for unjustified pardons.  I think the mischief comes as presidents are winding down and on the way out in the period between november and inaugural.  It certainly has in the past.

  by Inland on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:04:38 AM PDT

  •  "a class of people"

    Who would be denied "justice and mercy"?

    "Conflict-of-interest" is probably an evolving concept. So what?

    by Carl Nyberg on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:09:32 AM PDT

    •  well, I was thinking specifically

      of some low ranking person in the white house, or maybe a party worker...who knows?  Well, I guess that's the point....nobody knows, since "conflict of interest" an undefined term.  Not evolving, but undefined.

      Would a Libby pardon be a "conflict of interest"?  If so, how?  

      by Inland on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:28:32 AM PDT

      •  Libby was a senior administration

        officials taking illegal actions designed to benefit the administration. The conflict of interest is nothing subtle.

        by Carl Nyberg on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:34:08 AM PDT

        •  It doesn't answer itself.

          The issue would have to be Bush's conflict of interest.  Just what is Bush's interest in pardoning Libby, and with what does it conflict?

          by Inland on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:46:04 AM PDT

•  I'm more concerned

  with eliminating pre-emptive pardons (as Carl's father mentions) because they suppress the discovery of the truth.  The rationale for the power to pardon is that sometimes justice needs to be tempered with mercy, but the only aspect of justice that's in such need is the punitive one.  There's no legitimate mercy interest in leaving wrongdoing unexposed; it is not mercy to tell someone "it's OK to pretend to everybody else that you didn't do what you did"; rather it's sanctioned dishonesty.

  by ebohlman on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:10:08 AM PDT

  •  no pardon before trial?

    I agree that this would help.

    But it doesn't address the situation with "Scooter" Libby. Libby has been convicted and won't roll on Cheney if he expects to get a pardon.

    by Carl Nyberg on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:17:56 AM PDT

•  How 'bout no pardon's for

  anyone employed in the Executive Branch during the President's term in office? That's pretty clear, and gets right to the heart of it.

  by zashvil on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:12:31 AM PDT

  •  would keep Nixon for pardoning

    Lt. William Calley which wouldn't be a bad thing.

    But Bust 41 could still have pardoned Weinberger for his crimes during the Reagan administration. I assume Bush 41 didn't want Weinberger to explain his notes which seemed to implicate Bush.

    by Carl Nyberg on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:16:28 AM PDT

    •  Any way you slice it, there

      is going to be someone who would slip by. But it seems to me the danger of abuse is primarily use of the pardon to obstruct an investigation into the incumbent's actions as president. That's what a pardon of Scooter would do, and why it seems particularly outrageous.  

      by zashvil on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:22:13 AM PDT

      •  I agree your proposal would cover most cases

        and it's pretty simple to explain.

        It might be the way to go.

        by Carl Nyberg on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:24:33 AM PDT

  •  That allows the Nixon pardon

    Just sayin'.

    by Elwood Dowd on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:26:56 AM PDT

•  I'm more absolutist

  Eliminate the Presidential pardon altogether.

  My reasons:

  • As others say, defining "conflict of interest" is a can of worms
  • One of the few recent high-profile pardons that seemed just to me was Clinton's pardon of Susan MacDougall -- and that would clearly fall under "conflict of interest"
  • Did Gerry Ford have a conflict of interest in the Nixon pardon?
  • I can think of many "bad" pardons in my lifetime, and almost no good ones. Scrap it altogether.
  • A complicated amendment is more difficult to pass than a simple one.

  by Elwood Dowd on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:17:54 AM PDT

  •  there are a bunch of people who are convicted

    who deserve mercy after-the-fact, right?

    Most pardons go to regular folk. Few go to people involved in politics.

    by Carl Nyberg on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:19:39 AM PDT

    •  We're talking about federal crimes

      The President cannot pardon someone for a conviction under New York law, although the Governor of New York can.

      So it's a narrow band of criminals. And Presidents don't pardon the controversial ones, anyway.

      I'll acknowledge that some opportunities for mercy are lost. But in return the opportunity for mischief is fully eliminated.

      I'll make that tradeoff.

      by Elwood Dowd on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:26:10 AM PDT

      •  a ban on all pardons

        will get "Scooter" Libby's supporters to trot out the most sympathetic cases in U.S. history. It's simple but gives the opponents of the amendment an easy way to defeat the amendment.

        by Carl Nyberg on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:32:53 AM PDT

      •  Ummmmm

        Lt. Wm. Calley, of the My Lai massacre in Vietnam of nearly 500 civilians was pardoned by Nixon after serving only a couple of years in jail.  I think that's just a little bit controversial.

        (BTW, bring that up the next time some RW nutcase brings up Clinton's pardons).

        by New Deal democrat on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:53:42 AM PDT

        •  the weren't real people

          they were potential Viet Cong.

          by Carl Nyberg on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:57:28 AM PDT

        •  Nixon didn't pardon Calley n/t

          by Elwood Dowd on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 11:08:33 AM PDT

          •  you're right

            Nixon freed Calley while he was on appeal and then the Secretary of the Army granted clemency.

            by Carl Nyberg on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 11:18:49 AM PDT

•  Please leave the Constitution alone. It's doing

  all it can just to survive.  It has lots of people trying to attach terrible things to it all of the time (like amendments to ban gay marriage, amendments to ban flag burning, all kinds of other craziness).  And it has lots of people in power completely ignoring the terms it already has (the Military Commissions Act, "extraordinary renditions," eg).  

  by davidseth on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:28:44 AM PDT

  •  people in power ignore the Constitution

    b/c they feel certain if they get caught they will receive a pardon.

    Allowing a President who violates the Constitution to pardon his subordinates convicted of violating the Constitution creates a problem, no?

    by Carl Nyberg on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:35:40 AM PDT

    •  That's not why they ignore it. The pardon

      is just imho incidental.  They ignore it because they can, and they can because the other branches are lame and ignore it when they step out of bounds.  So the fix, i think, isn't to tinker with the pardon power, it's to get a Congress that has some balls.

      by davidseth on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:44:43 AM PDT

      •  having a better Congress would help

        but as Field Marshall Rumsfeld might say, you oppose President Bush with the Congress you have, not the Congress you wish you had.

        by Carl Nyberg on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:51:55 AM PDT

•  Combine two of the proposals in this diary

  "no pardon before trial"
  and
  "no pardon of anyone who worked in the Administration"

  that would still allow some abusive pardons, but I like this formulation better than trying to define COI.

  by Feanor on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 11:06:29 AM PDT

  •  proposed text

    Section 1. The President shall not have the power to pardon an individual prior to the courts determining guilt.

    Section 2. The President shall not have the power to pardon members federal employees, contractors or agents working on behalf of the President.

    by Carl Nyberg on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 11:39:57 AM PDT

    •  I would just amend article 2, section 2 thusly

      change

      he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

      to

      he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for persons convicted of committing Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment, or persons who have served in the Executive branch during his tenure.

      IANAL, let alone a Constitutional scholar, so perhaps that's not the best wording...

      by Feanor on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 11:59:30 AM PDT

•  Scooter Libby Case IS A CASE OF IMPEACHMENT

  Bush may well have been part of the conspiracy Libby was convicted over - an impeachable offense if true.

  by Near Vanna on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 12:32:24 PM PDT