https://www.whitehousehistory.org/the-history-of-the-pardon-power

There has to be some sort of check and balance

TexAgs91 said:

---

There has to be some sort of check and balance

---

Impeachment and then conviction and removal via the Senate.

I always thought the purpose was to right a wrong.

TexAgs91 said:

---

There has to be some sort of check and balance

---

On all three branches, coequally. One branch does something, another branch undoes it. Third branch does something, one of the other branches undoes it.

I don't think cancellation of debt or commutation of sentences is a check and balance.

boulderaggie said:

---

I always thought the purpose was to right a wrong.

---

That was never the purpose.

SwigAg11 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

There has to be some sort of check and balance

---

Impeachment and then conviction and removal via the Senate.

---

Against a democrat president? LOL right

DargelSkout said:

---

Why do we have presidential pardons? I don't understand why we let one person change the decision of a jury of peers. It also doesn't make any sense that we give this person power to clear someone of all crimes they may have committed, whether these crimes have been discovered or not.

Can someone explain to me why this is still allowed?

---

Pretty damn simple answer Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution

And if you fully understand what it takes to amend the Constitution you will understand that there is nothing that can be done.

Biden is abusing the system, trump needs to pardon all the republicans....lol

TexAgs91 said:

---

There has to be some sort of check and balance

---

What if the check and balancers are immoral scumbags?

Im Gipper said:

---

boulderaggie said:

---

I always thought the purpose was to right a wrong.

---

That was never the purpose.

---

So much this.

Rebel Yell said:

---

No President has abused it . . . until now.

This is a dangerous precedent.

---

It's an idiotic thing to give someone so much power. We are not a monarchy.

aggiehawg said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Rebel Yell said:

---

No President has abused it . . . until now.

This is a dangerous precedent.

---

It's an idiotic thing to give someone so much power. We are not a monarchy.

---

Yet, it was the power of the King to grant clemency within British common law that resulted in our Founding Fathers thinking it was important enough to put it specifically in the Constitution.

Of course, they also envisioned that whoever was President would be religious and a God fearing man and would wield that power judiciously.

---

That was then. This is now.

We cannot go back to slavery just because they built so much some time ago.

If the Founding Fathers didn't foresee that future Presidents would be crooks, scumbags and sellouts, it is their fault.

Just giving you the history and why it was put into Article II. While at A&M I took two semesters of British history. Great prof and a great class. Learned a lot that I still remember from those classes.

aggiehawg said:

---

Just giving you the history and why it was put into Article II. While at A&M I took two semesters of British history. Great prof and a great class. Learned a lot that I still remember from those classes.

---

An example of truly effective teaching.

TexAgs91 said:

---

There has to be some sort of check and balance

---

Yes. Integrity, ethics, and morality were supposed to be the checks.

Quote:

---

Please tell me, what is the purpose.

---

First reponse on the thread has a great link.

Pardon convicted crimes, ok I guess. Pardon for any unconvicted crimes that may arise in the future is not remotely ok.

AgCat93 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Just giving you the history and why it was put into Article II. While at A&M I took two semesters of British history. Great prof and a great class. Learned a lot that I still remember from those classes.

---

An example of truly effective teaching.

---

Also helped a lot when I went to law school. I already knew a lot of the common law and thus how much our federal Constitution came to be. And that applied both substantively and even procedurally in some respects.

Im Gipper said:

---

Rebel Yell said:

---

No President has abused it . . . until now.
.

---

Not sure if serious.

Ever hear of Marc Rich?

---

Or Charles Kushner.

Presidents have been using this more and more to help out friends and donors. I wish it could be done away with but as others have said, good luck since it will require an amendment to the Constitution.

Quote:

---

Or Charles Kushner.

---

Kushner had served his time. Marc Rich was still on the run. There's a huge difference.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Or Charles Kushner.

---

Kushner had served his time. Marc Rich was still on the run. There's a huge difference.

---

I wasn't comparing it to Rich but rather the way in which they are handed out as personal favors. Does anyone think he is pardoned if he wasn't the FIL of POTOS's daughter?

one safe place said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

There has to be some sort of check and balance

---

On all three branches, coequally. One branch does something, another branch undoes it. Third branch does something, one of the other branches undoes it.

---

And that's why there's really four branches. The people being the fourth. It's the only one that can completely negate the other three. It's difficult, which is intended, but the power is there. Unfortunately, we have devolved into a tribal "us versus them" mentality. The American people have abdicated their responsibility. Our representatives push through blatantly unconstitutional measures, knowing that the people won't challenge it or look deep enough. Presidents abuse executive orders rather than working with Congress. The Supreme Court is now viewed as a branch to follow the will of the majority, rather than a non-partisan constitutional check on the executive and legislative branches. The odds of there ever being enough consensus to add another amendment is almost zero.

I am a proponent of the president having broad powers to pardon... but I never envisioned us electing a Marxist vegetable.

EKG1996 said:

---

https://www.whitehousehistory.org/the-history-of-the-pardon-power

---

This applies to an elected president... Biden has not been in charge for 3.5 years and his staff, sure as hell, is not elected.

Rebel Yell said:

---

No President has abused it . . . until now.

This is a dangerous precedent.

---

er….profited off it. Everything that Biden family touches turns corrupt. Worst President EVER

No president has abused it???

Clinton sold pardons!

I'd like to see the constitutionality of these "blanket pardons" without specific crimes being numerated challenged. It's unprecedented, there is nothing in A2 specifically supporting it, and it's easy argued as large leap beyond the plain interpretation of the text.


If Biden wants to pardon Hunter he should be able to, but I don't believe he has the authority of pardoning him from being convicted of all potential crimes for a 10 year period of time.