ARG Polling: Presidential Pardons in the Constitutional Convention

[Leinad]

48-hour poll as part of our new series of ConCon related polls (I wish I had this idea sooner, it's a great way to improve activity in the Convention).

Currently, the President can unilaterally pardon anyone except themselves. How, in general, should pardons be done under the new Constitution?

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

President with consent of the senate. Or if the court system can stay active, maybe allow the president to unilaterally demand a retrial of any court case they aren't a plaintiff/defendant in.

[Adam Griffin]

We do not have unilateral power right now. We used to have it: the President could pardon anyone (including his or herself). Now, the President can only pardon others. I find it disappointing that we're talking about watering this power down even further. There are certain...privileges that come with being President. The President as a whole has very few powers that he or she can utilize to make the office worthwhile, and those powers (along with the Vice President's powers) have been whittled down bit-by-bit over the years. A continuation of this trend will inevitably result in no one wanting to be President, trust me.

Also: as far as I know, this debate is solely about the Constitutional Convention discussion, and not because I've done anything personally to merit it.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I'll be addressing the Convention at length in the near future on the merits of this proposal, but for the sake of the public I'll post a "sneak preview" here:

1) As should already be apparent, the new Constitution will massively increase the power of the Regional governments, granting them exclusive jurisdiction over a variety of important issues, allowing them to regulate Senate elections, and otherwise absolving them from the governmental constraints established under the current document. This is, generally speaking, a good thing; but it requires that we have a strong national executive as well to prevent the Union from fracturing as it did during the days of the Articles of Confederation. Therefore, weakening the pardoning power or otherwise stripping executive privileges should be approached with caution, as moving too much in that direction could seriously weaken the Union.

2) From a Constitutional theory standpoint, the power to grant pardons and reprieves is unquestionably an executive privilege. The role of the legislature is to make the laws; it is up to the executive to enforce them and, when prudent, utilize his executive prerogative to make exceptions. (This is all laid out very eloquently in Locke's Second Treatise, if anyone's interested). Allowing a single body to both legislate and grant immunity from said legislation to persons of their choosing is the very antithesis of the separation of powers that seems to be the main argument for this change.

[Leinad]

Also: as far as I know, this debate is solely about the Constitutional Convention discussion, and not because I've done anything personally to merit it.

Of course, it has nothing to do with you. It's entirely about the ConCon which should be fairly clear. I think that doing polls based on the Convention is a good way to boost activity (so it falls under my role as Deputy Presiding Officer).

As far as my personal opinion on this issue, I proposed a citizen initiative back before you were president, before I was even governor, to add a Senatorial safeguard on the role. Unfortunately it failed, due to fears that it would ruin the office of the presidency. But those fears are unwarranted: given that it's such a small role of what the president does, and their pardons would only be overturned in the case of a supermajority of the senate--so, only the crazy stuff would be overturned.

We do not have unilateral power right now. We used to have it: the President could pardon anyone (including his or herself). Now, the President can only pardon others.

I know...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Allowing a single body to both legislate and grant immunity from said legislation to persons of their choosing is the very antithesis of the separation of powers that seems to be the main argument for this change.

Of course, which is why it's a good thing that only 1 in 15 want that, and I myself never supported that position.

I'd ideally like it to be the President's job, but the Senate, or Congress as a whole, can overturn it with 2/3rds majority. Or that number could change--just as long as there's some safeguard.