With the news of the Scooter/Bush assault on decency, I wondered what the original reasoning was for giving the President the power to pardon. Surely it wasn’t for the despicable butt-covering and crony-rewarding for which the last few presidents have used it.
A little research led me to
this:
Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution gives the president "Power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment." A reprieve reduces the severity of a punishment without removing the guilt of the person reprieved. A pardon removes both punishment and guilt.
As judicially interpreted, the president's power to grant reprieves and pardons is absolute. Individual reprieves and pardons cannot be blocked by Congress or the courts. The Framers of the Constitution envisioned the pardon power has having a narrow purpose in times of war and rebellion. The president might offer pardons to rebellious factions as an inducement for a laying down of arms and national reconciliation. Alexander Hamilton argued in the Federalist Papers (No. 74) that "in seasons of insurrection or rebellion, there are often critical moments, when a well-timed offer of pardon to the insurgents or rebels may restore the tranquillity of the common wealth; and which, if suffered to pass unimproved, it may never be possible afterwards to recall."
And, a little more
history:
Congress enacted a steep tax on spirits in 1791 to help pay down the national debt, and hard-hit small producers protested by taking to the streets in western Pennsylvania. They quickly formed a multi-state armed rebellion and President George Washington called in 13,000 troops to quell the opposition. Intent on emphasizing federalist power, the government charged the whiskey rebel leaders with treason against the U.S., although many were released due to a lack of evidence.
Virginia Governor Henry Lee, on Washington's behalf, issued a general pardon for those who had participated "in the wicked and unhappy tumults and disturbances lately existing," even though some of the rebels had not even been indicted. Only a few men had trials and two were convicted of treason (which meant death by hanging). Eventually, Washington pardoned those who had treason convictions and indictments. It was the first pardon in American history that overturned a criminal conviction, and the first time under the young U.S. Constitution that the federal government wielded military force to quell its own citizens.
For this sort of reasoning (although it seems a bit dated in our relatively stable condition) and other non-corrupt reasons, I don’t think ending the pardon option is a good idea. But clearly, it should be used NOT to cover one’s own ass (as Reagan, Bush and Bush have used it), nor for rewarding faithful cronies nor to make a profit (as it looks like Clinton may have used it).
Change the laws. We must absolutely reject a two-tiered justice system: One set of penalties and consequences for the elite (and their friends) and another for the rest of us.
5 comments:
This would take a constitutional amendment, you realize. It's hard to get them passed and ratified by 2/3 of the states. I'd rather concentrate energy on passing an Equal Rights Amendment and an amendment abolishing the electoral college.
"With the news of the Scooter/Bush assault on decency"
How is this an assault on decency? I am curious what reasoning brings you to that conclusion?
From my review of the case it appears Libby deserved his commutation. He was tried for perjury, not the leak itself. The events he was questioned about happened years prior. His testimony was no more or less consistent than other witnesses who testified before the special prosecutor. (Not to mention that the person who did leak the story was never even punished or pursued by the special prosecutor).
Indeed, this prosecutor was about as bad as Starr. Libby was convicted of perjury because that was the best a special prosecutor who spent millions of dollars pursuing a leak case that never panned out could do to justify his actions.
I for one regret that Bush lacked the guts to actually pardon Libby. But then again, he hasn't taken any action to help those two border patrols agents who presently sit in jail.
I didn't like Bush when he ran in 2000. And I like him less and less with each passing day.
The Cato blog had an interesting take on the pardon. It didn't really have a conclusion of if the pardon was a wise decision or not, but it pointed out many more deserving of a presidential pardon, mostly victims of minimum sentencing, for instance, someone who got 15 years for counting their boyfriends drug money. In short, it stated there are many more gross injustices of our current system than the Libby case (if one even sees it as an injustice).
The problem with the pardon is that there is no feedback mechanism for who someone pardons. Any unwise pardon is without consequence.
I think Kaiser hits on a good point. Fitzgerald eventually found out everything Libby lied/obstructed about and what did he do with it? Nothing. No crimes here, move along. It's basically Ken Star part deux, millions wasted on a non-event. A shining example of what government does best.
Guys, this was not a pardon, but a commutation of the jail sentence. Quite different than a pardon.
Post a Comment